2024 (9) TMI 150 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - sale of land as income from business and profession - notice u/s 148 is issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the AY on previously concluded scrutiny assessment u/s 143 (3) - HELD THAT - From the facts, it can be seen that the petitioner assessee had offered the entire sale consideration under the head income from business and profession which was subjected to detailed scrutiny by the AO in the original scrutiny assessment. AO raised various questions which were answered in detail with documents by the petitioner in the several replies during the original scrutiny assessment.AO has framed the assessment after considering such replies and documents furnished by the petitioner. Therefore it cannot be said that the AO failed to consider the provision of Section 50C in the original assessment as the same would not apply when the AO accepted the transaction of sale of land being stock in trade and assessing the income therefrom under the head income from business and profession . On perusal of the reasons recorded by the respondent Assessing Officer, it is clear that the provision of Section 50C is admittedly not applicable to sale of stock in trade as the same is not a capital asset and reopening the assessment based on such opinion is nothing but a mere change of opinion and as such, the impugned notice u/s 148 for reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration is not tenable. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the sale of land treated as stock in trade.
3. Alleged failure of the petitioner to disclose material facts fully and truly during the original assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner challenged the notice dated 28.03.2021 issued under Section 148 for the assessment year 2013-14, arguing it was beyond the four-year limit from the end of the assessment year. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not establish any failure on the petitioner's part to fully and truly disclose all material facts during the original assessment proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had provided all necessary details during the original assessment, which was concluded under Section 143(3). The AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on the same material already scrutinized, which amounted to a change of opinion, not permissible under law. Therefore, the court found the notice under Section 148 invalid.

2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the sale of land treated as stock in trade:

The petitioner argued that the land sold was treated as stock in trade, and thus, the provisions of Section 50C, which apply to capital assets, were not applicable. The court agreed, stating that Section 50C is relevant only to capital assets and not to stock in trade. The land in question was shown as stock in trade in the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. Hence, the AO's reliance on Section 50C to justify the reopening of the assessment was misplaced.

3. Alleged failure of the petitioner to disclose material facts fully and truly during the original assessment:

The petitioner maintained that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and there was no failure on their part. The court observed that the entire issue of the sale of land was thoroughly scrutinized during the original assessment proceedings, and the AO had accepted the explanations and information provided by the petitioner. The court found no evidence of non-disclosure of material facts by the petitioner. Consequently, the AO could not assume jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 beyond the four-year period as stipulated in the proviso to Section 147.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion and was not justified. The notice dated 28.03.2021 issued under Section 148 was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the extent of quashing the impugned notice. No order as to costs was passed.

← Previous Next →