TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),Valsad [for short to as Ld. CIT(A) ] dated 24.01.2019 for assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arises from the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari / Assessing Officer in assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 28.12.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 148. 2. Even otherwise the learned assessing officer has erred in passing the order u/s 147 by making the addition when he didn t make any addition on issues pertaining to the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registered sale deed by mistake, but stamp duty was paid as per prevailing market rate (jantri rate). On the aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 of the Act to purchaser to appear on 18.12.2017. The Assessing Officer recorded that neither purchaser attended hearing before him nor filed any reply. The Assessing Officer issued final show cause notice dated 22.12.2017 recording all such anomaly. The assessee filed his reply vide reply dated 27.12.2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that he received Rs. 25.00 lakh as sale consideration from Vijay B. Patel and credited in his bank account on 03.03.2012. The assessee furnished affidavit of purchaser and further stated that purchaser, Shri Vijay B. Patel was out of town and could not appear in his office and prayed not to make any addition. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking his view payment of Rs. 25.00 lakhs was received after execution of sale deed and it is the duty of assessee to rectify the sale deed. The statement of Shri Vijay B Patel was recorded where he stated that he is not aware how much payment was paid for purchasing said agricultural land. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer noted that assessee sold the agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 15.00 lakh as per sale deed executed on 28.02.2012. However, the bank statement indicates receive of Rs. 25.00 lakh on 03.03.2012 from the purchaser party. On asking such credit subsequent to purchase, the assessee stated that sale deed document mistakenly not reflected in sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 25.00 lakh and filed affidavit before Assessing Officer, contending that Rs. 25.00 lakh was nothing but a sale deed consideration amount. Such contention of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. Before him, the assessee made similar submission and filed supplementary / rectification sale deed, wherein the amount of sale consideration was altered which registered on 12.04.2018. The ld. CIT(A) took his view that that affidavit and modified / rectification sale deed in appellate proceedings and appears to be an after-thought for payment unconnected with the agricultural land and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on sale consideration either on account of sale, rather Assessing Officer has made addition on different issue without making any addition on the basis of reasons of reopening, thus, the addition is not sustainable. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon on the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah [2018] 95 taxmann.com 46 (Guj), Commissioner of Income-tax-II vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013] 30 taxmann.com 1 (Guj)/[2013] 214 Taxman 38 (Guj)/[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Guj)[29.01.2013], Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom)/[2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom)/[2011] 239 CTR 183 (Bom)[12-04- 2010]. 8. The Ld. AR for the assessee in alternatively submits, that re-opening is not valid as the reasons to believe is based on mere suspicion and reasons recorded cannot be substituted or supplementary by any subsequent information. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheo Nath Singh Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tax some other income in course of reassessment proceedings against such decision, Special Leave Petition of Revenue has been admitted and the issue is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bikaner v. Dr. Devendra Gupta [2008] 174 Taxman 438 (Raj)/[2011] 336 ITR 59 (Raj). 11. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on various case law relied upon by both the parties. I find that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh by taking view that during assessment on verification of bank pass-book, he noted that assessee received consideration amount of Rs. 25.00 lakh from purchaser party, subsequent to the execution of sale deed. On confronting such fact, the assessee explained that Rs. 25.00 lakh credit is nothing but a part of sale consideration of rural agricultural land. I find that there is no dispute that impugned agricultural land sold by assessee was rural agricultural land as same is not disputed by lower authorities. The dispute is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
