Bhagwati Prasad, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Kanpur

ITA 244/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4387 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 148; 54

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.244/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KANPUR VS BHAGWATI PRASAD, 279/7 SHASTRI NAGAR, KANPUR UP 208 005 PAN ASZPP 5272 G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 12/07/2016 DATE OF HEARING 15 /0 7 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BE QUASHED. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE INVOCATION OF SEC. 50C OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY AS SESSING OFFICER. 3. BECAUSE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION OF RS. 500,000/ INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE U/S 54 . 4. BECAUSE THE CIT {A} HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSUMING THE ' LEA SE RIGHT ON LAND AND BUILDING' AS ' LAND AND BUILDING'. 5. BECAUSE THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IN THE NAME CF HIS SON'S WIFE. 6. BECAUSE THE CIT APPEAL HAS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THE JUDGMENTS PASSED BY VARIOUS COURTS ON THE SAME ISSUE BY ALLOW ING EXEMPTIONS 2 ON PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS. 7. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IS SEL F CONTRADICTORY, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, THE SAME BE QUASHED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 12.07.2015, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST HOWEVER , THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH A REMARK THAT ADDRESS IS NOT AVAILABLE. SINCE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CORRECT P OSTAL ADDRESS WHERE NOTICE CAN BE SERVED. THIS OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE SINCER E EFFORTS TO EFFECT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING UPON THE ASSESSEE BUT IT COULD NO T SUCCEED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-P ARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ON IMPUGNED ISSUES AND I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE IMPU GNED ISSUES IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER. SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS NOTICED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- (S.K. YAD AV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/07/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR