9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 816 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner - HELD THAT - Since in the present case the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by mentioning only Yes in Column No. 12 of the Format for Recording the Reasons for Initiating Proceedings u/s. 147 and For obtaining the Approval of the Addl./JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, the legal issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, hence, respectfully following the aforesaid precedent in the case of Gopal Chand Manudhra and Sons; Damyanti Mundhra; Ramdev Mundhra; Shriya Devi Mundhra and Gopal Chand Mundhra vs. ITO, Wards 55(5), New Delhi 2019 (8) TMI 1121 - ITAT DELHI the reassessment is hereby quashed and accordingly the additional ground no. 2 is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Classification of agricultural land as a capital asset. 3. Deduction under Section 54F for the purchase of a flat. 4. Validity of reassessment proceedings based on mechanical approval. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act: The Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on vague grounds and mere suspicion. The Assessee contended that the sale proceeds were treated as income escaping assessment without any prima facie attempt to ascertain the capital gains. The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening the assessment was given in a mechanical manner without proper satisfaction or application of mind by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), as evidenced by the mere endorsement of "Yes" in the approval column. This was deemed insufficient and mechanical, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. 2. Classification of Agricultural Land as a Capital Asset: The Assessee argued that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset as it was situated in a village outside the municipal limits and did not have a population exceeding ten thousand during the relevant years. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order, holding that the land was a capital asset. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal despite acknowledging that the Municipal Committee of Dahruhera (Rewari) did not exist at the time of the Gazette notification in 1994 and was created only in 2007. Therefore, the land sold by the Assessee was not a capital asset as per the Government Gazette notification. 3. Deduction under Section 54F for the Purchase of a Flat: The Assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for the purchase of a flat, which was disallowed by the CIT(A). The Assessee contended that as per the law applicable to the assessment year, they were entitled to claim deduction for two houses. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on jurisdictional grounds. 4. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings Based on Mechanical Approval: The Tribunal extensively discussed the issue of mechanical approval for reopening assessments. The Tribunal cited multiple case laws, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing that the approval for reopening an assessment must be given with due application of mind and not in a mechanical manner. The Tribunal found that in the present case, the approval was given mechanically with a mere "Yes" endorsement, which was insufficient. This lack of proper application of mind rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings on the grounds that the approval for reopening the assessment was given in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the other issues raised, as the reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed, and the reassessment order was quashed.
|
