2023 (3) TMI 1041 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assumption of jurisdictional u/s 147 - reasons to believe - reassessment made on the basis of information received that property was sold by the assessee, though the amount of sale consideration and the capital gains may be different - HELD THAT - No merit in submission of the DR, of the reasons for reopening the assessment we find that the AO has taken due note of the capital gains offered by the assessee from sale of property with sale consideration - AO sought to tax the capital gains on the transaction of sale of property with sale consideration which as per the AO was not offered to tax by the assessee. Therefore, the income which was initially alleged to have escaped assessment was not ultimately added by the AO while passing the assessment order and rather the transaction already disclosed by the assessee was re-examined and the capital gains computed by the assessee was recalculated in the assessment order without issuing a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act. It is trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Thus reopening of assessment in the present case is unsustainable in law. The impugned reassessment proceedings are set aside for this short reason alone - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147.
2. Application of Mind by Assessing Officer and CIT during Reopening.
3. Justification for Delay in Filing Objections to DRP.
4. Adoption of Market Value of Property.
5. Calculation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition.
6. Disallowance of Society Contribution.
7. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain.
8. Demand Raised by Assessing Officer.

Summary:

1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on the grounds that the reasons recorded for reopening were incorrect, as no immovable property of the value of Rs. 2,65,45,504 was sold during the relevant assessment year. The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings based on information received from DIT (I&CI) about the sale of a property. However, the actual assessment made was different from the reasons recorded for reopening, making the reopening unsustainable in law.

2. Application of Mind by Assessing Officer and CIT during Reopening:
The assessee argued that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT applied their mind to the reasons for reopening. The tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening were not consistent with the actual assessment made, indicating a lack of proper application of mind.

3. Justification for Delay in Filing Objections to DRP:
The assessee submitted that the DRP unjustifiably rejected the objections as time-barred, despite the delay being due to a genuine mistake by the appellant's representative. The tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds.

4. Adoption of Market Value of Property:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer arbitrarily adopted the market value of the flat as on 1st April 1981 at Rs. 1,50,000 without any basis. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer disregarded the valuation report by a Govt. Registered Valuer and adopted a lower market value without justification.

5. Calculation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer erred in calculating the indexed cost of the flat. The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer recomputed the capital gains on the property sold for Rs. 12,80,00,000, instead of the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 2,65,45,504, without issuing a fresh notice under section 148.

6. Disallowance of Society Contribution:
The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the society contribution amounting to Rs. 25,60,000. The tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds.

7. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing the long-term capital gain at Rs. 12,15,97,140 against the returned long-term capital gain of Rs. 9,50,51,636. The tribunal found that the reassessment was based on different grounds than those recorded for reopening, making the assessment invalid.

8. Demand Raised by Assessing Officer:
The assessee argued that the demand of Rs. 1,24,42,549 raised by the Assessing Officer was provisional as the determination of the fair market value was pending with the DVO. The tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds.

Conclusion:
The tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding them unsustainable in law due to the inconsistency between the reasons recorded for reopening and the actual assessment made. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →