2020 (10) TMI 982 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - issue of notice u/s.143(2) beyond the prescribed period - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwa 2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT has held that - the notice u/s.143(2) being prerequisite, in the absence of such notice, the entire proceedings would be invalid. Therefore, the provisions of Section 143(2) of the Act and the proviso thereunder would clearly apply to the case before us. Admittedly notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was given on 24-11-2014, which is beyond the prescribed period of six months from the end of the financial year, in which the return was furnished by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional validity of assessment, application of Section 50C, validity of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act

Jurisdictional Validity of Assessment:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the AY 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act after receiving information about the sale of a property not disclosed by the assessee. The AO applied Section 50C of the Income Tax Act to determine the sale consideration. The CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee by allowing the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee raised concerns about the validity of the reassessment, applicability of Section 50C, and the nature of the property sold.

Application of Section 50C:
The AO had adopted a value for the property based on the provisions of Section 50C, which mandated computation of capital gains with reference to the lower value between the Fair Market Value determined by the DVO and the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The CIT(A) upheld the application of Section 50C, leading to the dispute raised by the assessee in the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee argued that the property was held as stock in trade and not subject to Section 50C, emphasizing the nature of the property transaction in the regular course of business.

Validity of Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act:
The additional grounds raised by the assessee included challenges to the jurisdictional validity of the assessment proceedings. The assessee contended that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering the assessment order invalid. The ITAT admitted and adjudicated on this legal ground, citing the necessity of the notice u/s.143(2) as a prerequisite for reassessment proceedings. The ITAT agreed with the assessee's contentions, setting aside the assessment order due to the invalid notice issuance, thereby not delving into the merits of other appeal grounds.

This judgment highlighted the critical issues of jurisdictional validity of assessment, the application of Section 50C in determining capital gains, and the validity of the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment order based on the invalid notice issuance underscored the significance of procedural compliance in reassessment proceedings.