A. Mohan Alankamony ORDER
P. Madhavi Devi, Member (J)
1. This is assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 12.03.2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 17.8.2009 admitting income of Rs. 2,27,890/-. AO received information that the assessee, along with 4 others, had sold an immovable property admeasuring 243 sq.yards at Gadwal Compound, Nampally, Hyderabad vide Document No. 464/2009, dated 19.02.2009 during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10 for a consideration of Rs. 58,00,000/- which was registered in SRO, Hyderabad. It was also learnt that the market value of the property is Rs. 1,14,09,000/- as per Sub-Registrar on which stamp duty and the registration charges were paid. The AO observed that as per the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act, the SRO value should have been adopted while computing the capital gain. Therefore, observing that the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2016. The notice which was sent by registered post was sent to the address given in the Sale Deed but the same was returned back saying "no such person with this address residing". The Assessing Officer, therefore, served notice to the assessee by affixture on 25.05.2016 on the address given by the Inspector of Income Tax. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a letter dated 13.5.2016 stating as under:
"5. Your above referred letter was served on me on 06.12.2016. Though the letter was served on me at my Residence at 69, Prestige Park, Gundala Pochampally, Medchal but my address mentioned in the letter is 5-8-5618, Gadwal compound, Nampally, Hyderabad which is incorrect.
In the letter you have required me to file my Return of Income in compliance to the Notice dated 31.03.2016 Issued u/s. 148. In this connection, I state that I have not received the Notice u/s. 148. I also state that my address comes in jurisdiction of Income Tax officer Ward-11(4) and I have filed my Return of Income for assessment year 2009-10 in Ward-11 (4). Therefore, the Notice issued by you u/s. 148 is without jurisdiction."
3. AO, however, observed that the notice u/s. 148 was issued after taking prior approval of the Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad and the notice was sent by registered post well within the time period i.e. 31.03.2016 as per the address available in the sale deed. Therefore, he did not accept the claim of the assessee and thereafter proceeded to consider the computation of capital gains by the assessee at Rs. 40,71,460/- and the claim of deduction of Rs. 34,30,000/- u/s. 54F and also deduction of Rs. 4,30,000/- u/s. 54EC of the Act. The AO observed that as per section 50C of the Act, the market value of the property is Rs. 1,14,09,000 and therefore, the long term capital gain should be at Rs. 96,80,460/- and after allowing deduction u/s. 54F and 54EC, he worked out the long term capital gain at Rs. 62,50,460/- and brought it to tax.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment and also the additions made by the AO. As far as the validity of the re-assessment is concerned, the assessee's contention is that she has filed her return of income to the ITO Ward 11(3), whereas the Officer who has initiated 148 proceedings was ITO Ward 5(3) and therefore, the notice u/s. 148 is not valid. He submitted that though the final assessment order was passed by the ITO Ward 11(4), he is not the Officer who has recorded the reasons for reopening. Thus, according to him, since the reasons were not recorded by the ITO having jurisdiction over the assessee, the reassessment is not valid. The CIT (A) however, held that the original r........