9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 707 - AT - Income TaxValidity of re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act Held that - CIT(A) rightly held that the AO has tangible material before initiating proceedings u/s 147 AO obtained information u/s 133(6) and thereafter, he has initiated proceedings for reopening the assessment - the assessments are reopened within 4 years from the end of the assessment year - there was no scrutiny in earlier proceedings and returns were accepted u/s 143(1), the principles laid down in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court would apply Decided against Assessee. Allowability of deduction u/s 54B of the Act Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes - Held that - CIT(A) gave findings that assessee has not furnished necessary evidences with reference to agricultural operations on the land - Assessees have placed a paper book with regard to pahanies, connection of power and also some photographs relevant for agricultural operations - these were seems to have been placed before the AO this aspect could not be examined as there is no discussion - while agreeing that the assessees claim u/s 54B cannot be denied so long as the lands were used for agricultural purposes before sale, this aspect of usage for agricultural purposes require verification by the AO thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for verification - Assesses are directed to furnish necessary evidence if not furnished already before the AO so as to substantiate that the lands were used for agricultural purposes before sale Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of deduction under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowability of Deduction under Section 54B: The primary issue in these appeals concerns the eligibility for deduction under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessees, individuals deriving income from various sources, claimed deductions under section 54B for the purchase of agricultural land using the sale proceeds from previously owned agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed these claims on the grounds that the lands sold were not used for agricultural purposes, thus not qualifying for the deduction under section 54B. The A.O. argued that the sale of land to an infrastructure company indicated non-agricultural use and that the area had become a notified area under the Cyberabad Development Authority. Furthermore, the A.O. doubted the assessees' claims of having conducted agricultural operations on the lands. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the assessees argued that similar cases had been decided in their favor, where the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had allowed the claims under section 54B. However, the CIT(A) found discrepancies between the current cases and the previously decided cases, leading to the confirmation of the A.O.'s decision that the lands were not used for agricultural purposes. The ITAT considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessees, including pahanies, power connection details, and photographs of agricultural operations. The ITAT noted that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CWT vs. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) 105 ITR 133 (SC) should be applied, emphasizing the actual use and intended use of the land for agricultural purposes. The ITAT found that the lands were classified as agricultural in revenue records and had been used for agricultural purposes, even if limited due to water scarcity. The ITAT concluded that the assessees were entitled to the deduction under section 54B, provided the lands were used for agricultural purposes before the sale. However, due to the lack of detailed examination and verification of the evidence by the A.O., the ITAT remanded the matter back to the A.O. for verification of the agricultural use of the lands before the sale. The assessees were directed to furnish necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. 2. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: In the cases of Smt. G. Bhagyavathi and Smt. Alluri Tirumala, the assessees also contested the reopening of the assessment under section 147. The CIT(A) dismissed their contentions, stating that the previous assessments were made under section 143(1) in a routine manner without forming any opinion. Therefore, the reopening could not be considered as a change of opinion. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), the CIT(A) held that reopening under section 143(1) is valid as there was no application of mind in the initial assessment. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the A.O. had tangible material before initiating the proceedings under section 147, including information obtained under section 133(6). Since the assessments were reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year and there was no scrutiny in the earlier proceedings, the ITAT upheld the reopening of the assessments. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT directing the A.O. to verify the agricultural use of the lands before the sale and allow the claims under section 54B accordingly. The reopening of assessments under section 147 was upheld as valid. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2014.
|
