SH. TOSH KUMAR JAIN,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 14/DDN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 September 2021AY 2010-20114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment was wrongly passed in the name of the Power of Attorney holder, and the capital gains tax should have been levied in the hands of the actual owner. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue treated the Power of Attorney holder as the owner of the property sold and levied capital gains tax. The assessee argued that the actual owner was the principal, not the Power of Attorney holder.

What were the issues?

Whether the Power of Attorney holder can be considered the owner of the property for capital gains tax purposes, and if an assessment made in the name of the Power of Attorney holder is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 16.09.2021Pronounced: 27.09.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3489/Del/2018
ITA No. 14/DDN/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Dehradun dated 08.03.2018 and the appeal of the assessee against the order of ld. PCIT, Dehradun dated 27.03.2021.

2.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

ITA No. 3489/DDN/2018 2 Tosh Kumar Jain 3. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) passed against the order u/s 148/143(3) of the AO in detail and find that the Id. CIT (A) has meticulously examined the issue in toto and concluded that the assessee is not liable to capital gains with regard to the property sold.

4.

The petit issue involved in the case is that Sh. Tosh Kumar Jain being the holder of the Power of Attorney has sold the property belonging to Sh. Mahant Dayal Das and also passed on the receipt to Sh. Mahant Dayal Das. The revenue misguidedly held the Power of Attorney holder is the owner of the property and accordingly fastened the liability of the capital gains computed instead of the legal heir of the assessee. Hence, we hereby decline to interfere with the well reasoned and aptly outlined order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

Further, the Id. PCIT passed an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2021 revising the order passed u/s 148 dated 29.12.2017. From the reasons for reopening mentioned in the notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act dated 09.11.2017, we find that the case has been reopened to examine the sale of the property by the assessee as a Power of Attorney holder of Sh. Mahant Dayal Das. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant para of the Assessing Officer is reproduced hereunder:

"3. That the then AO has clearly mentioned in the office note in the A.Y. 2011-12. "During the assessment proceedings, it is found that assessee as a power of attorney holder of Mahant Dayal Dass R/o Mittiwala, Tehsil-Muktsar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajsthan has sold on 08.09.2009 immovable properties two residential plots of value

ITA No. 3489/DDN/2018 3 Tosh Kumar Jain Rs.3,83,15,000/- to his wife Smt. Monika Jain for Rs. 20,00,000/-. One residential plots have area 29060 Sq. Mts. Khasra No. 427 and another plot of 3137 sq. mt. khasra no. 48/28 are situated at village-Bhuparwala Kalan, Pargana-Jwalapur Teshil & Distt.-Haridwar. Proceedings u/s 147 are to be initiated for charging LTCG for A.Y. 2010-11."

Thus, the after considering the office note and also the records of this office. AO has reason to belief that income to the extent of Rs.37,83,15,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Hence, action u/s 147 has been initiated after getting approval from the Higher Authority and stand correct."

6.

The Assessment has been completed u/s 148 vide order dated 29.12.2017 making the addition of Rs.32.93 crores as mentioned in the reasons of reopening.

7.

On the short point of the issue, since the reasons of reopening have been duly considered and the amount has been brought to tax in the Assessment Order, it cannot be said the order passed u/s 148 by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

8.

Having said that, the real issue in the case of order u/s 263 is that the assessment u/s 148 has been passed wrongly in the name of the assessee "Tosh Kumar Jain" whereas the assessment has to be rightly passed in the hands of Sh. Mahant Dayal Das as duly held by the Id. CIT (A) in his estimable order, which has been affirmed by this Tribunal. Hence, we hold that the proceedings in the case of the u/s 263 against the order passed u/s 148 which itself has been wrongly invoked cannot

ITA No. 3489/DDN/2018 4 Tosh Kumar Jain withstand the test of legality even on the primary jurisdictional issue.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/09/2021.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →