2016 (6) TMI 981 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - higher stamp valuation - assessment in the hands of legal heir of deceased assessee - Held that - We do not find that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It appears that the assessee had declared the sale consideration of the land in question as 87.71 lacs where as had accepted the stamp valuation which would come to 2.12 crores considering the stamp duty of 11.92 lacs affixed on the sale deed. It was in this background the Assessing Officer invoked section 50C of the Act treating the difference as deemed long term capital gain. When these facts were not on record when the sale deed was not on record during the original assessment this certainly is a case where the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully material facts necessary for assessment. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
Challenge to notice of reopening dated 28.2.2014 by respondent Assessing Officer for assessment year 2007-2008. Validity of reassessment proceedings due to alleged failure to disclose material facts and improper service of notice.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner contested the notice of reopening issued by the Assessing Officer based on the sale of immovable property, claiming that the income had not been offered for tax in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. The petitioner's objections to the reopening were rejected, leading to the filing of the petition.

2. The Court issued interim directions allowing the assessment proceedings to continue but preventing the implementation of any final order until the next hearing. The focus of the petition was on challenging the validity of the reassessment rather than the enforcement of tax recovery.

3. The petitioner argued that there was no failure on their part to disclose all relevant information during the original assessment, making the notice for reopening invalid in law. Additionally, they raised concerns about the notice being issued against a deceased individual, questioning the validity of service.

4. The department's counsel contended that the assessee had misdeclared the nature of the land and the sale consideration, leading to the invoking of section 50C of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. The department emphasized that the failure to disclose material facts justified the reassessment.

5. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on discrepancies between the declared sale value and the stamp valuation of the property. The petitioner's failure to disclose crucial information during the original assessment supported the reassessment under section 50C for deemed long term capital gain.

6. The observations made by the Assessing Officer during the reassessment process highlighted the discrepancies in the information provided by the petitioner regarding the nature of the land sold and the subsequent transfer process. The Court noted that such crucial details were not presented during the original assessment, justifying the reassessment within the permissible timeframe.

7. The Court concluded that the issues raised regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the alleged improper notice were not explicitly addressed in the petition. The reassessment had already been completed, leaving any further contentions to be raised in appellate proceedings.

8. The petition was disposed of, with the notice discharged and the interim relief vacated. The Court's decision upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the failure to disclose material facts and allowed for any additional challenges to be raised in appellate proceedings.

← Previous Next →