Shailesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. ITO

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2370 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Narain Dutt Sharma v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1816 (Jp-Trib)
REFERRED National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 1026/JP/2019 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2738 (Jp-Trib) IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. & VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. Shailesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. ITO ITA No. 1026/JP/2019 7 July, 2020 Assessee by: Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) Revenue by: Miss Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) ORDER *Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.* This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, dated 27-6-2019 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :-- '1. The order passed by the learned assessing officer is bad in law as the same has been passed without satisfying the conditions stipulated and without assuming the jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred seriously in confirming the action of the assessing officer in considering the sale of land and building by the appellant as sale of land only and making disallowance of construction cost of building and further disallowing the benefit under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.' 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of information received from DIT (I & CI), Rajasthan that the assessee has sold certain immovable property, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and in compliance, the assessee submitted that the return filed under section 139 on 25-7-2008 may be accepted in due compliance to notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 29-2-2016. In the assessment so completed, while computing the income under the head 'long term capital gains', the assessing officer held that only plot of land was sold by the assessee and no constructed house was sold, hence, cost of construction claimed to be incurred in financial year 1990-1991 and deduction under section 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee were denied. Against the said findings, the assessee moved an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the findings of the assessing officer and against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is now in appeal before us. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 1026/JP/2019
2020 TaxPub(DT) 2738 (Jp-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH

VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. & VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

Shailesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. ITO

ITA No. 1026/JP/2019

7 July, 2020

Assessee by: Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)

Revenue by: Miss Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

ORDER

Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, dated 27-6-2019 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :--

'1. The order passed by the learned assessing officer is bad in law as the same has been passed without satisfying the conditions stipulated and without assuming the jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred seriously in confirming the action of the assessing officer in considering the sale of land and building by the appellant as sale of land only and making disallowance of construction cost of building and further disallowing the benefit under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of information received from DIT (I & CI), Rajasthan that the assessee has sold certain immovable property, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and in compliance, the assessee submitted that the return filed under section 139 on 25-7-2008 may be accepted in due compliance to notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 29-2-2016. In the assessment so completed, while computing the income under the head 'long term capital gains', the assessing officer held that only plot of land was sold by the assessee and no constructed house was sold, hence, cost of construction claimed to be incurred in financial year 1990-1991 and deduction under section 54 of the Act as claimed by the assessee were denied. Against the said findings, the assessee moved an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the findings of the assessing officer and against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is now in appeal before us.