2018 (5) TMI 1443 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - sale of immovable property - capital gain or capital loss - assessee produced purchase and sale deeds alongwith approved valuer s report assessing the value of property - The impugned notice was issued beyond the period of 4 years - notice must be quashed on the ground of change of opinion - thus reopening of the assessment is wholly impermissible - decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenging a notice for reopening assessment for AY 2011-2012 based on undisclosed capital gain from the sale of an immovable property.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual with income from salary, initially declared a capital loss in the return for AY 2011-2012 due to the sale of a co-owned property. After revising the return to correct the share percentage, the Assessing Officer conducted a detailed scrutiny, requesting documents and valuation reports related to the property transaction. The officer, satisfied with the provided information, made no additions to the assessment order. However, a notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the statutory four-year period, citing undisclosed capital gain based on information received regarding a co-owner's property sale. The petitioner objected to the notice, leading to the present petition.

Upon review, the High Court found that the Assessing Officer had thoroughly examined the capital gain issue during the original scrutiny assessment, where the petitioner had disclosed the property sale, her share, and the capital gain computation with supporting documents. The court deemed the notice for reopening as a change of opinion, as the officer had not challenged the computation or the approved valuer's report previously. The attempt to adopt the co-owner's valuation figures for the petitioner's assessment was deemed impermissible. The court concluded that there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose material facts fully and truly. Therefore, the court allowed the petition, quashing the notice for reopening the assessment.

In summary, the High Court held that the Assessing Officer's attempt to reopen the assessment beyond the statutory period, based on undisclosed capital gain from a property sale, was unwarranted. The court found no justification for the reopening, as the petitioner had provided all necessary information during the original scrutiny assessment, and the officer had not disputed the capital gain computation or valuation report at that time. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the notice for reopening the assessment.