Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
ORDER The above two appeals by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 30th March, 2017 of the CIT(A)-10, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2006-07. Since identical grounds have been taken by both the assessees, therefore, these were hard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 by recording the following reasons:-
“Reasons recorded for initiation proceedings u/s 148 of the I T Act, 1961in the case of Sh Kultar Singh for the AY 2006-07 The Income Tax Officer (Inv. Unit IV(2), New Delhi vide his letter F.No. ITO (Inv)/ Unit-IV(2)/2012-13 dated 15.03.2013 had sent a report in the case of ShKultar Singh S/o S. Harbans Singh. As per the investigation made, the assessee had deposited unaccounted cash in his Bank Account. The detail are as follows: 1. Unexplained cash credit/ unexplained money A.Y 2006-07 Rs. 18,76,350/- As per the information, the Avtar Singh & family received total amount for acquisition of property in Maidangarhi popularly known as Sainik Farms area of South Delhi total Rs 56.29 crores (DD component Rs 14.43crores and cash components Rs 41.86crores) from the above said property acquisition. As there is no separate division mentioned in the letter received from ITO (Inv) Unit-IV-2, New Delhi for the amount received on the acquisition of the said properties and there are three persons are involved as the owner of the said property such as (i) Shri Avtar Singh r/o C-523, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, (ii) Shri Kultar Singh r/o D-665, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, (iii) Shri Arya Singh r/o C-63B, Gangotri Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi. Therefore, it is assumed that they are having equal share i.e. 1/3rd of the total receipt. As per the above facts, the unexplained cash credit/ unexplained money u/s 68 & 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has escaped assessment in the case of Shri Kultar Singh for A.Y 2006-07 to the extent of Rs 18,76,350/- as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of above mentioned facts, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs 18,76,350/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, necessary permission/ approval under section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded for issuance o notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2006-07. Sd/- (Umesh Kumar) 2
Income Tax Officer Ward-23(2), New Delhi
In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 28th February, 2014 declaring total income at Rs.2,11,114/-. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) to which the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, after considering the details filed by the assessee and considering the details received from the DRI, Mumbai regarding the cash transactions in purchase and sale of land, determined the total long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee at Rs.33,59,434/-. After deducting the long-term capital gain shown by the assessee at Rs.1,63,201, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.31,96,233/- on account of long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Similar addition has been made in the hands of Shri Ariah Singh (ITA No.3366/Del/2017).
Before the CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, there was no relief granted by the CIT(A) who upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings.
However, due to certain arithmetical inaccuracy, he directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of long-term capital gain in respect of the assessee at Rs.31,96,233/- as against Rs.33,59,434/-. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:-
“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer:
That the proceedings initiated, maintained and concluded u/s 147/148 of the Act are ab initio, vitiated and illegal must be quashed with directions for relief; 2. That the orders of the authorities below are contrary to facts and bad in law and so must be quashed; 3. That the adoption of the sale consideration at Rs. 35,96,233/- as against the actual figure of Rs. 4 Lacs is arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and untenable and being against facts and law must be rejected with directions to adopt the true figure of Rs. 4 Lacs as sale consideration for computation of Capital Gains.” 5. Identical grounds have been taken by the assessee Shri Ariah Singh in ITA No.3366/Del/2017.
I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It may be pertinent to mention here that the land was sold by Shri Avtar Singh, Shri Kultar Singh and Shri Ariah Singh. On a pointed query by the Bench as to what has happened in the case of Shri Avtar Singh, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is pending before the CIT(A) and he is yet to pass the order in the case of Shri Avtar Singh. Therefore, when it was proposed that why the above two appeals also should not be sent back to the file of the CIT (A) to decide the issue afresh and to maintain consistency, the ld. counsel for the assessee as well as the ld. DR have no objection for the same. In view of the above, I deem it proper to restore both the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to pass fresh orders along with the other co-owner, namely, Shri Avtar Singh so that consistency is maintained.
Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees. I hold and direct accordingly. The above appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2019.