9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1233 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Long Term Capital Gains with evidences of sale deed/purchase deed/additions made in each year and also explain deduction claimed u/s 54 - HELD THAT - No specific information was noticed by the Revenue on the basis of which re-opening has been made, the fact remains that there is nothing placed on record by the AO or tax authorities to justify the claim that the re opening was warranted beyond the period of four years. In the facts of the present case, we find that on merits, the case of the assessee deserves to be allowed. The addition made by way of a disallowance on the claim of exemption cannot be upheld for the detailed reasons addressed herein above which are in line with the position of law as argued before the CIT(A) and canvassed before us. Even otherwise we find that in the facts of the present case, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to demonstrate that the action was warranted beyond a period of four years in the facts as they stand. Accepting the explanation offered and on consideration of facts, circumstances and position of law as discussed herein above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of reopening the case under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Reopening the Case under Section 147/148: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in reopening the case beyond the period of four years. The assessee argued that full facts were made available to the AO during the original scrutiny proceedings, and the AO had specifically raised questions on the issue, which were duly replied to and considered. The reopening was claimed to be a mere change of opinion without any new material facts or incorrect appreciation of law. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the details during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on the same facts, which does not justify the reopening beyond four years. The Tribunal relied on the legal position that the law requires the Revenue to demonstrate the insufficiency of material, which was not done in this case. 2. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 54: The assessee contended that the investment in the new residential house was made within the stipulated time frame, and the law does not require the same money received from the sale of the asset to be invested. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had invested the amount in the new residential property before the due date for filing the return. The Tribunal also noted that the law requires the investment to be made within the specified period and not necessarily from the same funds received from the sale. The Tribunal supported its conclusion by referring to various judicial decisions, including C. Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT, which held that Section 54(1) does not contemplate that the same money received from the sale should be used for the acquisition of the new residential house. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had complied with the conditions laid down under Section 54, and the disallowance of the deduction was not justified. 3. Validity of the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals): The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) upheld the reopening and disallowance without properly considering the facts and legal position. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not dispute the facts that the investment was made within the stipulated time and that the AO had already examined the details during the original assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the order of the CIT(A) was contrary to law and facts, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the reopening of the case was not justified, and the disallowance of deduction under Section 54 was incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the law does not require the same money received from the sale to be invested in the new property, and the assessee had complied with the conditions laid down under Section 54. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the facts and legal position, and the order was contrary to law and facts.
|
