2018 (4) TMI 2009 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment after completion of four years - AR contended that as per the reasons recorded there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts - assessee has not incurred any cost of acquisition of the said property therefore action of assessee to consider acquisition cost and working of indexation cost is not in order and has to be disallowed - HELD THAT - It is clear from the above reasoning that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the fact that no cost has been incurred for the acquisition of the said property. Accordingly there is not merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee. Addition made u/s.50C - We had carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that issue under consideration is squarely covered not only by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs Tauqeer Fatema Rizvi 2014 (5) TMI 315 - ITAT MUMBAI but also by the decision of Abrar Alvi 2000 (3) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT CIT(A) has decided the issue by following the decision of the Tribunal in case of Mrs Tauqeer Fatema Rizvi 2014 (5) TMI 315 - ITAT MUMBAI Respectfully following the order of the Bombay High Court as well as Tribunal as stated above we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for confirming the addition made u/s.50C of the IT Act. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

2025 (3) TMI 1262 - AT

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the completion of four years, was justified given that the assessment was originally completed under Section 143(3).
Whether the addition made under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) based on the facts and precedents.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Reopening of Assessment under Section 147

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act allows for the reopening of an assessment if the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, the proviso to Section 147 restricts reopening after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether there was a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's reasons indicated that the assessee did not incur any cost of acquisition for the property in question, which was a critical fact not fully disclosed.
Key evidence and findings: The AO recorded that the assessee considered an acquisition cost and indexed cost for a property for which no actual cost was incurred during the financial year 2006-07.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the failure to disclose the lack of incurred cost constituted a failure to disclose all material facts, justifying the reopening of the assessment.
Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that all material facts were disclosed, but the Tribunal sided with the AO's reasoning that the omission of the cost detail was significant.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was justified under the proviso to Section 147.

Deletion of Addition under Section 50C

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 50C of the Income Tax Act pertains to the consideration of the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration for computing capital gains. The Tribunal referenced the case of Mrs. Tauqeer Fatema Rizvi, where similar facts were considered.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) and the Tribunal relied on the precedent set in the case of Mrs. Tauqeer Fatema Rizvi, where the cost of acquisition was determined based on the market value at the time of acquisition of ownership rights in exchange for tenancy rights.
Key evidence and findings: The property was acquired in lieu of tenancy rights, and the appellant had claimed an acquisition cost based on comparable market values. The Tribunal found the facts analogous to the Rizvi case, where the market value at the time of acquiring ownership was considered the cost of acquisition.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the market value of the property at the time of acquisition of ownership rights should be considered for computing capital gains.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that no cost was incurred was countered by the precedent that recognized the value of tenancy rights as a cost.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under Section 50C, directing the AO to recompute capital gains based on the market value as of the acquisition date.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal quoted from the Rizvi case: "It is now quite settled that for the purpose of cost of acquisition under section 48 and 49, the tenancy rights is to be taken into consideration."
Core principles established: The assessment can be reopened if there is a failure to disclose material facts, and the cost of acquisition for capital gains can be based on the market value of property acquired in exchange for tenancy rights.
Final determinations on each issue: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order and upholding the principles regarding reopening assessments and determining the cost of acquisition for capital gains.