9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 563 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition of LTCG on land which belongs to HUF - land was inherited by the assessee from forefathers, it belongs to HUF - assessment has been reopened after a period of four years - HELD THAT - In the instant case, we find the very same fact was examined by the AO in the first round of reassessment proceedings. Therefore, again issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act by recording reasons for escapement of income on the same set of facts, in our opinion, amounts to change of opinion. Therefore, we find merit in the submission of the ld. Counsel that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are merely on account of change of opinion and, therefore, is not sustainable. There has to be tangible material for the AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and there must be a live link with such material for the formation of the belief. Merely using the expression failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts is not enough. The reason must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee. As mentioned earlier, the Tribunal, in the instant case, while deciding the case of Smt. Ashrafi Devi, had merely directed the AO to verify as to whether the HUF has filed the return disclosing the capital gain arising from transfer of such land. However, in the instant case, the AO, instead of verifying the same, reopened the assessment on wrong appreciation of facts which is nothing, but, mere change of opinion. Original assessment was framed u/s 147/143(3) on 26th March, 2014 accepting the returned income at ₹ 3,580/- wherein the issue of capital gain on transfer of such land was duly considered and accepted on the basis of various supporting documents filed at the time of such reassessment proceedings and since there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in the instant case is illegal and invalid being without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Computation of long-term capital gain. 3. Denial of exemption under Sections 54F/54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147: The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the original assessment was completed under Sections 147/143(3) on 26th March 2014, determining the total income of the assessee at ?3,580/-. The case was reopened to assess the long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The Tribunal noted that the AO, in the first round of reassessment, had already examined the facts and accepted the return of income. The Tribunal held that the AO, instead of verifying the capital gain in the hands of the HUF as directed, reopened the assessment on the same set of facts, amounting to a change of opinion. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., and concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and illegal. 2. Computation of Long-term Capital Gain: The AO computed the long-term capital gain of the assessee at ?1,38,39,317/-. The Tribunal observed that the AO's computation was based on the cost of acquisition determined in the individual status of Smt. Asharfi Devi, which was factually incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observation that the assessee had not objected to the distance certificate or the fair market value during the appellate proceedings was factually incorrect. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid, and therefore, the computation of long-term capital gain was not sustainable. 3. Denial of Exemption under Sections 54F/54B: The AO rejected the claim of deduction under Sections 54F/54B on the grounds that the assessee did not claim the deduction in the return of income and failed to furnish the necessary bills and vouchers. The Tribunal held that the assessee had made due investment eligible for deduction under Sections 54F/54B and that there was no estoppel against the statute. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., and held that the assessee could make a fresh claim in appellate proceedings. However, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed, this issue became academic. 4. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The AO levied interest of ?26,03,544/- under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as the reassessment proceedings were quashed, rendering the levy of interest academic. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO as invalid and void ab initio, holding that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the other grounds challenging the addition on merits were not adjudicated. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
|
