1978 (1) TMI 105 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) based on alleged non-disclosure of material facts.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant purchased an old property and constructed a new building over two assessment years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessments under section 147(a) due to alleged non-disclosure of true particulars regarding the cost of construction. The appellant contested that all primary and material facts were disclosed initially, and the subsequent change of opinion by the ITO should not be a basis for reassessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reduced the additions made by the ITO, but the appellant appealed further to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing the requirement of reasonable grounds for the ITO to believe in non-disclosure of material facts for reassessment under section 147(a). The ITO's grounds for reopening the assessments were the discovery of on-money payment by the appellant's co-brother and the valuation report filed for wealth tax assessment showing the property's market value. However, the Tribunal found these grounds irrelevant to the cost of construction by the appellant.

The Tribunal highlighted that the ITO's decision to reopen assessments was based on incorrect grounds, as the cost of construction and funding sources were explained during the original assessments. The ITO had already added amounts to the cost of construction initially declared by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the ITO's change of opinion, without new material facts, did not justify reassessment under section 147(a). The Tribunal concluded that the reopening of assessments was not valid in law and set aside the reassessments, ultimately allowing both appeals.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of the validity of reopening assessments under section 147(a) based on alleged non-disclosure of material facts. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reasonable grounds for reassessment and held that a change of opinion without new material facts does not justify reopening assessments. The decision highlighted the need for the ITO to base reassessment on facts disclosed during the original assessment process, ultimately setting aside the reassessments and allowing the appeals.