INDU THAKUR,RANCHI V. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

ITA 62/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Indu Thakur, the appellant, who entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. Shanti Constructions for developing a property. The Income Tax Department issued a notice under section 148 for the assessment year 2015-16, suspecting non-disclosure of capital gains from the agreement. The AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, which were challenged by the assessee as being vague and insufficient. The Tribunal examined the recorded reasons and found them lacking in specificity and legal basis, leading to the decision to annul the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633227 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KHUBCHANDT PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIH.R.PATEL ADITYA SAHOO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indu Thakur, Arvind Marg, Booty Road, Bariatu, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) NFAC dated 31.1.2024 assessment year 2015 2. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR ShriH.R.Patel/Shri Aditya Sahoo, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.62/RAN/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indu Thakur, Arvind Marg, Booty Road, Bariatu, Ranchi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri H.R.Patel/Shri Aditya Sahoo Revenue by :Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 12/06/202 Date of Pronouncement :12/06/202 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) 31.1.2024in Appeal No. NAFC/2014-15/10117930 2015-16 Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue and H.R.Patel/Shri Aditya Sahoo,ld ARs appeared for the assessee. P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1(1), Respondent) H.R.Patel/Shri Aditya Sahoo hri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr DR /2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- 15/10117930 for the appeared for the revenue and appeared for the assessee. ITA No.62/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 P a g e 2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual, who had entered into a joint venture agreement in regard to development of property. It was the submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on the assessee on 31.3.2021. The reasons recorded for reopening reads as follows: “In the instant case the assessee has entered into, a land owner of R.S.Plot No.718, sub-plot No.718/17 KhataNo.156 measuring 7.17 kathas situated at Village Gar, Ward N.6, Thana No.194 P.S.Sadar District-Ranchi has entered into a joint development agreement with a developer M/s. Shanti Constructions, Ranchi, a proprietorship firm having PAN AARFS 4059 C on 21.5.2014 to develop a multi storied residential complex on the above mentioned said property. As per the joint development agreement, the owner was entitled t 46% (forty six) of the super build up area in the new building and for parking area also land owner’s share shall be 456(forty six) This arises the issue of the capital gain on account of the joint development agreement in the hands of the landowner as per section45(5A) of the act. Hence, the question of taxability arises that whether the capital gains would be chargeable in the hands f the landowner in respect of the possession of flats, in lieu of the transfer of land t the builder., As per the definition of transfer u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act this arrangement befits into the definition of transfer” 4. The assessee had objected to the reasons recorded vide a letter dated Nil. The same was disposed off by the AO vide an order dated 24.3.2022. It was the submission that a perusal of the reasons recorded clearly shows that the reasons recorded and the reopening was only a fishing and roving enquiry. And there is no reference by the AO that the reasons recorded are leading to the reopening ITA No.62/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 P a g e 3 | 4 of the assessment by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. It was the submission that just a note is prepared by the AO and these are not reasons recorded. It was the submission that on the basis of this note the assessment has been reopened without reference to satisfaction for reopening and or issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. It was the submission that the reopening was bad in law and should be quashed. 5. Ld Sr DR submitted that he has called for a report from the AO and same is still awaited. He vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the reasons recorded which have been extracted above, clearly shows that the AO himself is not sure as to there being any evasion. The AO himself is raising a question as to whether the capital gains would be chargeable in the hands of land owner itself. Further on perusal of the alleged reasons recorded clearly shows that there is no reference by the AO mentioning the non-disclosure by the assessee for which he is proposing to initiate notice u/s.148 of the Act. On account of all these failuresaid annexure cannot be treated as reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. As there is no recoding for the purpose of reopening of assessment, the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and consequential reopening of assessment and consequential assessment itself become invalid and same is annulled. ITA No.62/Ran/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 P a g e 4 | 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 12/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Indu Thakur, Arvind Marg 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "