2001 (10) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - sufficient grounds existed for reopening of assessment under section 148 - the attempt of counsel for the Revenue in the instant case to justify reassessment on the basis of subsequent material collected by the Valuation Officer cannot justify the reopening of the assessment. The value which was accepted at Rs.138.80 per sq.ft. as cost of construction by the Income-tax Officer was reasonable one based on documents. Learned counsel made an effort that certain construction was suppressed but it was explained that this construction was raised by the purchaser after sale by the assessee. He was not responsible for additional construction. No categorical finding was recorded by the Assessing Officer in this regard as to how much construction was suppressed. Even in the order of reassessment no such finding has been recorded. Thus all the attempts to justify subsequent assessment are unfounded and baseless in the absence of a finding how much construction was made by the assessee and how much was made by the purchaser. Additions made on reopening of assessment by the Income-tax Officer were not justified.

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification for reopening based on valuation discrepancies.
3. Validity of reasons recorded for reassessment.
4. Consideration of subsequent material for reassessment.
5. Judicial view on reasons for reopening assessments.

Issue 1: Reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The case involved the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking a reference under section 256(2) for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93, where the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on discrepancies in the cost of construction declared by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment under section 148, leading to the deletion of the additions made.

Issue 2: Justification for reopening based on valuation discrepancies:
The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment as the cost of construction declared by the assessee was lower than the valuation officer's estimate. However, the Tribunal found that the valuation mentioned by the assessee was accepted based on the account books and other relevant documents produced, and there was no valid reason to believe that the assessee had declared low costs of construction, especially since all material facts were disclosed in the return.

Issue 3: Validity of reasons recorded for reassessment:
The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must have valid reasons to believe that income was under-assessed due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. The recording of reasons under section 148(2) is mandatory, and the reasons must provide a foundation for assuming jurisdiction. In this case, the court found that no valid reason was recorded for reopening the assessment, rendering the reassessment proceedings unjustified.

Issue 4: Consideration of subsequent material for reassessment:
The court rejected the attempt to justify reassessment based on subsequent material collected by the Valuation Officer, stating that the value accepted by the Income-tax Officer was reasonable and supported by documents. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide a categorical finding on the alleged suppressed construction by the assessee further weakened the justification for the reassessment.

Issue 5: Judicial view on reasons for reopening assessments:
The court reiterated that reasons for reopening assessments must be valid and relevant, as improper and vague reasons do not justify reopening. The court emphasized that only the recorded reasons can be considered for sustaining or setting aside a notice for reassessment. In this case, the court concluded that the attempts to justify the reassessment were unfounded, and the additions made by the Income-tax Officer on reopening the assessment were not justified.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application seeking reference, stating that no question of law arose in the case requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer it to the court.

← Previous Next →