9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 518/Bang/2018 are as under. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 of the Act by issuing the notice U/s.148 was opposed to law and accordingly the assessment as made is liable to be cancelled. 2. The conditions precedent being absent, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 is bad in law. 3. There being no omission much less an omission of declaration of income in therelevant assessment year in the return of income filed by the appellant, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation. Thus, the ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed the expenditure incurred in full 10. Without prejudice, the impugned additions confirmed are opposed to law in that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the financial results there from besides the source of investment. 11. Without prejudice, the additions/disallowances were excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be reduced substantially. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed." 3. The grounds raised by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have appreciated that the transaction did not yield income which had ended up in loss and even if the appellant was liable to be assessed on his share it was loss, which was required to be considered for set off against his other income. 8. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the submission of Appellant regarding the Hon'ble ITAT, the appeal of the other coparceners has sent back to the AO with the direction that the expenditure incurred has to be allowed proportionately. 9. The ld CIT (A) ought to have considered the documentary evidences filed with regard to the expenditure incurred for development of land, or given one more opportunity before the AO for explanation. Thus, the ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed the expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - in the hands of the appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the 'transaction did not belong to the appellant individually and the transactions were required to be considered in the hands of AOP in which the appellant was a member with 1/7thshare. 6. The learned CIT(A) having perused the agreement of AOP ought to have appreciated that there was a valid AOP in existence which carried on the transaction as business transaction/ adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly the AOP alone was liable to tax and no part of the income if any of the AOP was liable to be confirmed in the hands of the appellant. 7. On the facts the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the transaction did not yield inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee years.Regarding merit of the case i.e. ground nos. 7 to 10, she submitted that in the case of co-owners i.e. Smt. M. Lakshmi Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 539 & 542/Bang/2017 and Smt. H. Gayathri Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 575, 540 & 541/Bang/2017 dated 26.05.2017, the Tribunal has restored back the matter to AO for fresh decision. She submitted a copy of this combined Tribunal order and drawn my attention to Para 7 of this Tribunal order in this regard. She also submitted that Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision on this basis that AO had not taken into consideration the expenditure incurred by the assessee for carving out 90 plots out of the total lands purchased and for this carving out, some expenditure is bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the orders of lower authorities, I find that the AO has computed the short term capital gain, but while doing so, he has not taken into account the expenditure incurred in levelling the plot. Undisputedly the assessee has carved out 90 plots out of the total lands purchased and for its carving out, some expenditure is bound to be incurred. But the AO did not taken into account the expenditure incurred in this regard and he has computed the short term capital gain without taking into account the expenditure incurred after the purchase of plot. This approach of AO is incorrect as for developing a plot, some expenditure is bound to be incurred. Therefore, I am of the view that this issue requires readjudication by the AO and I accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
