TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai dated 26.03.2013 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an HUF and filed its return for the assessment year under consideration by admitting total income of ₹ 72,598/-. Initially the return was processed under section 143(1) and subsequently, after i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly in the names of Smt. Sulochana Began and Amudhan Began, members of the HUF] in a residential flat covering UDS land, cost of construction and interiors grossly amounting to ₹ 39,88,631/- besides a Capital Gains Deposit of ₹ 22 lakhs and net capital gains was worked out at ₹ 72,598/-. The Assessing Officer has accepted the net capital gains working and completed the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the assessee has submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 is bad in law for the reason that Shri A.R. Pandurangan, father of the assessee HUF from whom the assessee has received the property was not assessed to tax and therefore, 171 of the Act has no application. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly relied on the decision in the case of Addl.CIT v. Durgam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263 of the Act to the assessee and fixed the hearing on 20.03.2013. It is the obligation of the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT or file reply to the notice. The assessee neither appeared before the ld. CIT nor filed any reply. Moreover, the assessment order could not speak about whether the assessee HUF s father was assessed to tax or not. Therefore, in our opinion and to meet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
