TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hands of the individual has simply directed the AO to very whether the HUF has been assessed or not. Tribunal nowhere directed the AO to reopen the assessment and make the impugned additions. In our humble opinion, the AO has totally misinterpreted the directions of the Tribunal and grossly erred in once again reopening the assessment on the same set of facts which have already been considered while framing assessment order dated 26.03.2014 in the hands of the HUF. We have no hesitation to set aside the notice u/s 148 of the Act, thereby quashing the assessment order framed pursuant to the said notice. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3935/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2020 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Ms. Suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsustainable. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in failure to appreciate that, issuance of notice u/s 148 merely amounted to change of opinion as original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and, no tangible material surfaced after the completion of assessment and, notice was illegal and, without jurisdiction. 1..3 That the basis adopted in the reasons recorded that action u/s 148 of the Act in compliance of order of Hon ble Tribunal dated 26.9.2014 in ITA No. 1082/D/2013 is based on misinterpretation and misconstruction of the findings of the Hon ble Tribunal and hence the action is without jurisdiction. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,96,57,084/- Less:indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.198133,84,880/100*582 = ₹ 1.97.00.002/- Capital Loss = Rs. (-) 42,918/- Later on, perusal of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T, New Delhi's Order dated 26.09.2014 in appeal No. ITA No. 1802/Del/2013 in assessee's case in Individual Status for A.Y. 2009-2010 it is revealed that the assessee has submitted before the I.T.A.T that the Capital Gains on the land in question has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF and the Hon'ble ITAT has directed the undersigned to verify the issue. The assessee has not challenged the cost of acquisition of the land in question as on 01.04.1981 and calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Long Term Capital Gains ₹ 1,94,86,593/- As the Long-term Capital Gain has been shown at Capital Loss of ₹ 42,918/- , therefore, Long-term Capital gain to the extent of ₹ 1,95,29,511/- (1,94,86,593 + 42,918/-= 1,95,29,511/-) has escaped assessment. I, therefore, have reason to believe that income of the assessee from long term Capital gain to the extent of ₹ 1,95,29,511/- as discussed above and any other income which subsequently comes to the notice of the undersigned has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. As mentioned elsewhere, earlier also, a notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee and assessment was completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
