TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng grounds of appeal before us: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the submissions made by appellant vide letter 26.12.2019 in totality and dismissing of the appeal without considering the submissions of the appellant. The action of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal is arbitrary, unlawful and not justified. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the A.O denying deduction u/s. 54B without appreciating the facts of the case properly and judiciously. The conclusion drawn by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) is not justified. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,51,437/- made by the A.O without appreciating that assessment order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asra No.5/2 & 10/1, P.H. NO.119/50, Raipur-1 for a consideration of Rs. 69.04 lacs to M/s. R.L. Developers, Naya Raipur. On a perusal of the records, it was gathered by the A.O that the aforesaid piece of land was purchased by the assessee in two tranches, viz. (i) F.Y. 2006- 07 : Rs. 3,32,063/-; and (ii) F.Y.1993-94 : Rs. 43,335/-. It was further observed by the A.O that as the agricultural land sold by the assessee being situated within the specified distance from the municipal limits of Raipur Nagar Nigam was a capital asset as per clause (b) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, therefore, the consideration received on the sale of the same was exigible to capital gain tax in his hands. The aforesaid factual position was further fortified by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in his own name at Village: Alekhunta, Khasra No.381/2 on 28.09.2012, other investments in land did not qualify for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, for the following reasons: "(i) The details of land purchased in the name of his brother as under: Village Agricultural land purchased in the name of Khasara No. Date of purchase Amount Rakhi In the name of Ram Kumar Sahu 246 27.02.2012 33,64,046/- Bhendsaar In the name of Yashwant Sahu 139 19.04.2012 1,63,430/- Total 35,27,476 As the above land has not purchased the agricultural land in his name. As per the provisions laid down u/s 54B, where the sold an agricultural land and purchased another agricultural land in the name of other, the assessee wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d neither put up an appearance nor sought for any adjournment, therefore, we are constrained to dispose off the appeal as per Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e. after hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the ld. AR and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as considered the material available on record. 9. Shri R.B Doshi, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short "AR") for the assessee at the very outset assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 26.12.2016. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the A.O had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n observe that the aforesaid report of the A.O is absolutely vague and is not specific on the aspect, i.e. as to whether or not any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the A.O prior to framing of the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2016. 11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR had submitted that though the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of the impugned assessment de-hors issuance of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before the CIT(Appeals), but the latter had failed to deal with the said aspect. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to a letter dated 26.12.2019 that was filed by the assessee in the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... oblivion of the fact that adjudication of his claim would require verification of the correct factual position, i.e. as to whether or not any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the A.O prior to framing of the assessment. Considering the fact that the veracity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, i.e. framing of the assessment dehors issuance of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is required to be verified and cannot be summarily accepted on the very face of it; coupled with the fact that though the assessee had vide his submission dated 26.12.2019 specifically assailed the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for framing the impugned assessment without issuing any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before the CIT(Appeals), which, however, w....