9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 606 - AT - Income TaxNon-signing of the copy of assessment order - as per the assessee copy of the assessment order served upon him was not signed by AO hence, the entire assessment has to be treated as invalid - assessee is a non-resident and is a practicing Ophthalmologist - Held that - A.R, after examination of the assessment record, has confirmed that the Assessing Officer has duly signed the original assessment order. Accordingly, in view of the decision of Kalyankumar Ray (1991 (8) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT) and Sushil Chandra Ghose (1991 (8) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT) the statutory requirement has been duly complied with by the assessing officer. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Notice of demand served upon the assessee bore the signature of the assessing officer. Hence, the absence of signature in the copy of the assessment order would not vitiate the assessment. Against assessee. Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that - On a perusal of the assessment order, AO has pointed out that (a) the assessee has claimed indexation benefit while computing the short term capital gain, (b) the exemption claimed by the assessee under sec. 54 of the Act is not in order and (c) the land on which short term capital gain was claimed was only a vacant land and not an agricultural land. All these reasons cited by the Assessing Officer cumulatively show that the AO had reason to believe that there was escapement of income. Hence, AO was justified in initiating re-assessment proceedings and accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard rejected. Against assessee. Whether the land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land or not? - Held that - The issues relating to the nature of land and the claim of exemption u/s 54B have not been properly examined by the tax authorities as the AO as well as the CIT(A) has placed more reliance on the report of the Inspector of Income tax and the development work carried out by the purchaser of land. Thus all these issues require fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. In favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment due to the unsigned copy of the assessment order issued to the assessee. 2. Validity of the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Classification of the property sold by the assessee as agricultural land. 4. Disallowance of the cost of improvement claimed on the property sold. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Due to Unsigned Copy of the Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the assessment was invalid because the copy of the assessment order served was unsigned. The assessee relied on several case laws, including *Vijay Corporation vs. Income-tax Officer* and *Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman and Others vs. CIT*. However, the Tribunal found that the original assessment order in the assessment record was duly signed by the Assessing Officer, and only the copy served to the assessee was unsigned. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT*, it was concluded that the absence of a signature on the copy does not invalidate the assessment if the original is signed. Therefore, this ground was rejected, and the additional ground of limitation also failed. 2. Validity of Re-opening of the Assessment Under Section 147: The assessee contended that the re-opening was invalid since no original assessment order was passed on the initial return. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd.*, which allows re-assessment under Section 147 if the conditions are met, even if no steps were taken under Section 143(3). The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe there was escapement of income, thus justifying the re-assessment. This ground was also rejected. 3. Classification of the Property Sold as Agricultural Land: The assessee claimed the land sold was agricultural, but the tax authorities disagreed. The Assessing Officer listed several reasons for this, including the land's location in a developed area, its use for non-agricultural purposes, and the lack of agricultural operations for over three decades. The Tribunal found contradictions in the evidence presented by both parties, such as discrepancies in land records and differing interpretations of the term "Purayidom." The Tribunal noted that the use of land by the seller, not the buyer, is relevant for determining its character. Given the incomplete examination of evidence, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. 4. Disallowance of the Cost of Improvement Claimed: This issue was connected to the classification of the land. Since the Tribunal remanded the classification issue for fresh examination, the disallowance of the cost of improvement was also set aside for re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issues related to the classification of the land and the cost of improvement back to the Assessing Officer for further examination and appropriate decision-making in accordance with the law.
|
