IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 1957/AHD/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income-tax Officer, Ward- V/S Smt. Urmilaben Patel L/h 1(2)(4), Vadodara of late Smt. Gangaben R Patel, Kamdhenu Estate Opp. City Bank, Race Course, Gotri Road, Vadodara (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACQPP6487Q Appellant by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Mukund Bakshi , A.R. ORDER Date of hearing : 03 -07-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01 -10-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara dated 16.03.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 and following grounds have been taken: 2 ITA No 1957/Ahd/2016 . A.Y. 2007-08 01. Id. CIT [Appeals] has erred in holding that Assessing Officer has committed error which cannot be rectified and reassessment order needs to be quashed, when in respect of various opportunities given to assessee, legal heir of assessee has co-operated with department in finalisation of reassessment and also furnished all details / information as called for as when reassessment order was passed on legal heir of assessee. 02. Id. CIT [Appeals] has erred in holding that reassessment was based on change of opinion and notice issued by Assessing Officer was after four years, when reopening of assessment was made on basis of information gathered at time of assessment proceedings for A.Y.201 1- 2012 in case of Shri Matrushri Gangaba Trust, other co-seller of property, which amounted to failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of assessee and, therefore, hit by first proviso to section 147 of Income-tax -Act, 1961. 03. Id. CIT [Appeals] has erred in holding that provisions of section 50C are not applicable, when stamp duty value of as assessed by Stamp Duty Valuation Authority was available with Assessing Officer for same property as per sale deed dated 08/05/2007. 2. Facts of case are that assessee is individual only source of income is capital gain. As assessee has filed return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 31.07.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 1,60,545/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Act was finalized on 23.01.2015 and determining total income of Rs. 1,85,36,550/-. Making addition of Rs. 1,83,76,000/-. 3. In this case, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 25.03.2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 in name of Late Gangaben R Patel. However, Late Gangaben R Patel died on 14.01.2010 and fact of same was available on record of department as return for A.Y. 2010-11 was filed by her legal heir and legal representative Urmilaben P Patel on 22.07.2010. and this fact was further clarified by 3 ITA No 1957/Ahd/2016 . A.Y. 2007-08 assessee in its submission during reassessment proceedings and proof of same was filed before Assessing Officer and assessee requested since Late Smt. Gangaben R Patel died much before date of issuance of notice u/s. 148. Therefore, reassessment proceedings are legal and void. Assessing Officer was not agree with contention of assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,83,76,000/-. 4. Thereafter assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) who granted relief to assessee. 5. We have gone through relevant record and impugned order and heard both parties. In this case, registration of Sale Deed is approved in A.Y. 2011-12 whereas capital gain is taxed in year under consideration while Sale Deed itself is executed in A.Y. 2008-09. ld. A.O. is holding that transaction has completed in year under consideration and, therefore, who could not have adopted market value on its assessable basis. And entire amount has already been assessed in hands of M/s. Jhonson Electric Co. Ltd. in assessment year 2008-09 and ld. A.R. has filed order of Co-ordinate Bench wherein following order was passed and matter was decided against Revenue: 6. Now property under consideration stood transferred on 15/07/2006 on handing over of possession to Jhonson Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. in compliance to Agreement for Sale dated 06.04.1993. Accordingly, subsequent transfer of said property by Jhonson Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. to Tanman Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vide Deed of Conveyance dated 08.05.2007 would result capital gain in hands of Jhonson Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. only. It is worthwhile to mention here that Long Term Capital Gain on basis of Deed of Conveyance dated 08.05.2007 has 4 ITA No 1957/Ahd/2016 . A.Y. 2007-08 been assessed in case of Jhonson Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 03.11.2010. Since Long Term Capital Gains on basis of sale consideration disclosed in Conveyance Deed determined u/s. 50C has already been assessed in case of Jhonson Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. which had purchased property from assessee. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly hold that property cannot again be assessed in hands of assessee. In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order and same does not require any kind of interference at out end. 7. In result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. 6. And in our considered opinion once same amount has already been assessed in hands of M/s. Jhonson Electric Co. Ltd. in assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, same amount cannot be considered again in hands of assessee. 7. In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has passed reasoned and detailed order and same does not require any kind of interference at our end. Therefore, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 8. In result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 01- 10- 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 01/10/2019 Income-tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(4), Vadodara v. Urmilaben Patel L/h of Gangaben R Patel