2019 (8) TMI 702 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - period of limitation - HELD THAT - As far as bar of limitation is concerned, we find from the perusal of records that the delay in filing of the appeals was explained in writing (in identically worded three separate letters) - we decline to dismiss the appeals on grounds of limitation. On merits, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking orders. Relevant portions of the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) have already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (B) of this order. During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. After hearing the Ld. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A). In view of the foregoing discussion, the three appeals filed by assessee are dismissed. Assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Exemption of capital gains on agricultural land under Sections 10(37) and 54B.
3. Admission and consideration of new evidence.
4. Validity of remand report based on new evidence.
5. Classification of land as agricultural and investment in new agricultural land.
6. Chargeability of capital gains tax.
7. Determination of land's cost at NIL.
8. Addition of ?57,600/- claimed by the assessee.
9. Applicability of Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that Section 148 was wrongly invoked, and the written submissions were ignored without reason. The CIT(A) justified the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, asserting that new material suggested income escapement. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting no change of opinion but rather a reassessment based on previously unexamined facts.

2. Exemption of Capital Gains on Agricultural Land:
The assessee claimed exemptions under Sections 10(37) and 54B, which were ignored in the reassessment. The CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to classify the land as agricultural under Section 2(14)(iii)(b). The Tribunal agreed that the primary onus was on the assessee to prove the land's agricultural status, which was not satisfactorily done.

3. Admission and Consideration of New Evidence:
The assessee argued that no new evidence was presented, relying on original assessment records. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found that the original assessment was based on incorrect facts, justifying the reassessment.

4. Validity of Remand Report Based on New Evidence:
The assessee challenged the remand report, claiming it was unsustainable. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the report, finding no substantial dispute against the written submissions.

5. Classification of Land as Agricultural and Investment in New Agricultural Land:
The assessee provided evidence of the land being acquired as agricultural and reinvestment in new agricultural land. The CIT(A) and Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to classify the land as agricultural, noting the absence of crucial details like distance from the nearest municipality.

6. Chargeability of Capital Gains Tax:
The CIT(A) determined that the land did not qualify as agricultural, thus making capital gains taxable. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the assessee's failure to establish the land's agricultural status.

7. Determination of Land's Cost at NIL:
The assessee contested the cost determination of the land at NIL. The CIT(A) sustained this assessment, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this determination.

8. Addition of ?57,600/- Claimed by the Assessee:
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 24, which was disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), classifying the income as "income from other sources" rather than "income from house property." The Tribunal agreed with this classification and disallowance.

9. Applicability of Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act:
The CIT(A) upheld penalties under Sections 271D and 271E for cash transactions violating Sections 269SS and 269T. The Tribunal found no new evidence to counter this, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s detailed findings and justifications. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the CIT(A)'s decisions on all counts. The appeals were dismissed on both procedural grounds (timeliness) and substantive merits. The assessee retains the right to seek restoration of the appeals under specific conditions as per the Tribunal's rules.

← Previous Next →