2020 (6) TMI 707 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land - HELD THAT - Notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee and assessment was completed vide order dated 26.03.2014. The order of the Tribunal is 26.09.2014 and the directions of the Tribunal are very clear that the AO had to verify whether the capital gains have been taxed in the hands of the HUF or not and assessment order dated 26, 03, 2014 clearly shows that assessment has been completed in the hands of the HUF. Once assessment has been reopened to tax capital gain in the hands of the HUF to avoid double taxation the Tribunal in the hands of the individual has simply directed the AO to very whether the HUF has been assessed or not. Tribunal nowhere directed the AO to reopen the assessment and make the impugned additions. In our humble opinion the AO has totally misinterpreted the directions of the Tribunal and grossly erred in once again reopening the assessment on the same set of facts which have already been considered while framing assessment order dated 26.03.2014 in the hands of the HUF. We have no hesitation to set aside the notice u/s 148 of the Act thereby quashing the assessment order framed pursuant to the said notice. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Additions made by the Assessing Officer in respect of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2009-10. The two grievances of the assessee were the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding long term capital gain on the sale of agricultural land.
2. The grounds challenging the reopening of assessment and the validity of notice u/s 148 were based on the lack of tangible material to support the initiation of proceedings and the assertion that the notice was issued without jurisdiction.
3. The notice u/s 148 was issued based on misinterpretation of the Tribunal's directions regarding the ownership of the land in question. The Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment, leading to double taxation concerns.
4. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer misinterpreted the directions and erred in reopening the assessment. The assessment order was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
5. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case since the assessment order was quashed, rendering further discussion unnecessary.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of reopening assessment, validity of notice, and additions made by the Assessing Officer, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi.