9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner who has set aside the assessment order vide order dated 29.3.2016. In pursuance of 263-order, the impugned assessment order was passed on 28.12.2016 under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. Dissatisfied with the order passed under section 263, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing ITA No.1348/Ahd/2016. The ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee and vacated the order of the CIT passed under section 263 on this issue, which is again pleaded by the Revenue in ground no.1 to 8 of the present appeal. The ld.CIT(A) has observed that since the order of the CIT passed under section 263 was vacated, therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the AO to make an inquiry on the issue of assessability of capital gain on sale of agriculture land. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) reads as under: "Decision: 3.3. In this case, assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.02.2014 on a total income of Rs. 16,96,560/-. Thereafter the Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad set-aside the said order vide order u/s.263 dtd. 29.3.2016 holding that the assessment passed vide order dtd. 28.2.2014 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on certain issues. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Authority for changing the nature land from agricultural to nonagricultural. In view of the above, the AO has computed the long term capital gain arising to the assessee in A.Y. 2011-12 at Rs. 10,49,84,150/-. 3.4. During the appellate proceedings the appellant has contended that the appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad against the order passed by the PCIT-5, Ahmedabad u/s.263 of the Act dtd. 29.3.2016. It is further contended that the Hon'ble ITAT has passed order dtd. 3.8.2017 vide order No.l348/Ahd/2016. The addition made on account of long term capital gain in the A.Y. under consideration has been dealt by the Hon'ble ITAT in the said order as under:- "12. We observe in these peculiar facts that the Revenue's latter plea that the above agreement to sell as well as the one handing over position are not valid since not registered documents does not deserve acceptance. We are of the opinion that the present is a case wherein the assessee could not have got the above documents registered in view of the statutory bar imposed, by the legislation hereinabove that a non agriculturist is not permitted to purchase agricultural lands. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore conclude that the assessee had transferred her lands to the vendee concerned in assessment year 2007-08 itself than in the year of execution of sale deed i.e. the impugned assessment year 2011-12. The CIT's order under challenge treating the latter assessment year to be the year of transfer is accordingly held to be not sustainable. 13. We further find before parting that the CIT has also not acted in accordance with law in passing a non reasoned remand order in exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. It has already come on record that he himself absented in the show cause notice that the Assessing Officer had accepted assesee's claim of having transferred the land in assessment year 2007-08 (supra). He therefore seems to have treated it as a case wherein the Assessing Officer fell in error in agreeing with assessee's transfer claim. We thus reiterate hon'ble Delhi high court's decision (supra) holding^ that it is not open for the CIT to pass a blanket remand order without dealing with merits of the issue such a backdrop of facts. We therefore hold that the CIT's remand directions to the Assessing Officer for framing a fresh ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 27,43,663/- to be unaccounted receipts and sought explanation from the assessee. It was explained by the assessee that the amount of job work receipts reflected in the profit & loss statement was net of purchases effected on such receipts. It was submitted by the assessee that this differential amount reflected total purchases made from Santosh Starch products of Rs. 13,12,315/-, Shri Ambica Dye Chem of Rs. 13,90,515/- and binding cloth of Rs. 40,833/-, which were also reflected in the books of accounts. However, the ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He observed that the assessee has claimed purchases separately, and there was no conclusive evidence to prove purchase expenditure. He accordingly made addition to this effect. Matter went in appeal before the ld.CIT, who allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved Revenue is before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, both the parties supported orders of respective authorities, and reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities. 8. After having heard both the parties and considering material available on record, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
