CIT v. Hamidullah Khan
[Citation -2017-LL-0526-122]

Citation 2017-LL-0526-122
Appellant Name CIT
Respondent Name Hamidullah Khan
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/05/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags protective assessment • sale consideration • question of law • void ab initio
Bot Summary: By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunals in para 7 observed as under:- 7.The ITAT, Jaipur bench in the case of K.S. Galudia, supra on the same facts has held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD is void ab initio and the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly understood the same and has tried to distinguish the said order of the Tribunal whereas the ITAT Jaipur bench in the case of K.S. Galudia, supra has given the decision on the basis of same documents which are relied upon by the AO in the present case. AR and following the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of K.S. Galudia, supra, the action of the AO u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD is void abinitio and the AO is not justified in taking the sales consideration at Rs. 3.30 lacs per bigha in place of Rs. 2.05 lacs per bigha as declared by the ITA-227/2008 assessee in the sale deeds in the absence of any material with the AO. The sales consideration of Rs. 2.05 lacs per bigha declared by the assessee is accepted. In view of the observations made by the Tribunal in para 7 in case of Hamidullah Khan which is not challenged by the department, in out considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error. On the basic principle that the view taken by the Tribunal earlier has not been subject matter of challenge and the department has accepted the assessment therefore, on factual matrix it will not be appropriate to entertain the appeals. In view of the dismissal of earlier appeal, it will not be appropriate to entertain in this appeal.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 227 / 2008 CIT ----Appellant Versus Hamidullah Khan ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 424 / 2008 CIT ----Appellant Versus Abdul Sayeed ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 26/05/2017 In both these appeals, identical question of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgmenty. 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department and partly allowed appeal of assessee. 2. This court while admitting matter framed following (2 of 3) [ ITA-227/2008] substantial questions of law:- In DBITA No. 227/2008 i). Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has not acted perversely and illegally in holding action of AO u/s 158BD void ab initio and taking sale consideration of land at Rs. 20,500/- per bigha as against rate of Rs. 3.30 lacs per bigtha adopted by AO? ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has not acted pervesely and illegally in allowing claim of assess under Section 54F? In DBITA No. 424/2008 i) Whether on facts and in law ITAT was justified in holding that initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC of Act read with Section 158BD is ab initio void and papers found during course of search in premises of Shri Sangram Singh, which in opinion of ITAT are dumb documents, cannot be basis for any addition in hands of assessee? ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in holding that protective assessment is not valid in proceedings u/s 158BC/158BD? 3. Tribunals in para 7 observed as under:- 7.The ITAT, Jaipur bench in case of K.S. Galudia, supra on same facts has held that initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD is void ab initio and ld. CIT(A) has wrongly understood same and has tried to distinguish said order of Tribunal whereas ITAT Jaipur bench in case of K.S. Galudia, supra has given decision on basis of same documents which are relied upon by AO in present case. We are convinced with arguments of ld. AR and following decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of K.S. Galudia, supra, action of AO u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD is void abinitio and AO is not justified in taking sales consideration at Rs. 3.30 lacs per bigha in place of Rs. 2.05 lacs per bigha as declared by (3 of 3) [ ITA-227/2008] assessee in sale deeds in absence of any material with AO. sales consideration of Rs. 2.05 lacs per bigha declared by assessee is accepted. Thus Ground No. 1 of assessee is allowed and solitary ground of Revenue is dismissed. In DBITA No. 227/2008 4. In view of observations made by Tribunal in para 7 in case of Hamidullah Khan which is not challenged by department, in out considered opinion, Tribunal has not committed any error. Therefore, on basic principle that view taken by Tribunal earlier has not been subject matter of challenge and department has accepted assessment therefore, on factual matrix it will not be appropriate to entertain appeals. 5. Therefore, issue is answered in favour of assessee against department. 6. appeal stands dismissed. In DBITA No. 424/2008 7. In view of dismissal of earlier appeal, it will not be appropriate to entertain in this appeal. 8. This appeal is also dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/39-40 CIT v. Hamidullah Khan
Report Error