2014 (7) TMI 204 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act Reason to believe Held that - The decision in RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT followed - AO formed an opinion that there was escapement of income being the exemption allowed to the assessee u/s 54 there was no factual finding corroborating to the reasons for reopening of assessment - In the assessment order, the AO has nowhere recorded that the property sold by the assessee was agricultural land and not a residential house, so, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 54 - the property sold by the assessee was the residential house and not the agricultural land - the very basis of initiation of proceedings on the basis of which the AO formed an opinion for escapement of income was not existing - The basis for reopening of assessment was that the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 54 because the property transferred by the assessee was agricultural land and not residential house - the AO reduced the exemption u/s 54 on the ground that the properties purchased by the assessee were two residential houses and not one - this was not the basis for reopening of assessment - reopening of assessment was not valid the additions made in the order of reassessment do not survive - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 for AY 2007-08 based on exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on property sale.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment, arguing that the AO did not have valid grounds under Section 147 to reopen the assessment. The appellant contended that the AO's belief that the property transferred was agricultural land and not a residential property, hence not eligible for exemption under Section 54, was found to be non-existent by the AO himself during reassessment. The appellant relied on a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court to support their argument. The respondent, however, argued that the AO partly allowed the exemption under Section 54 and partly disallowed it during reassessment, which aligned with the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal considered the arguments and referred to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that once the reasons for initiating proceedings ceased to exist, the AO could not make other adjustments to the original assessment.

The Tribunal analyzed the reasons recorded for reopening, which indicated that the AO believed an income of Rs. 2,55,56,885 had escaped assessment due to incorrect exemption under Section 54. However, upon review, it was found that the property sold was a residential house, not agricultural land as assumed by the AO. The assessment order did not support the AO's initial belief, as no finding was made regarding the property being agricultural land. The Tribunal noted that the AO allowed a reduced exemption under Section 54 during reassessment based on different grounds not relevant to the reopening. Relying on the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening of assessment was not valid and subsequently quashed the assessment order.

As a result of quashing the assessment order, the Tribunal found that the other grounds raised by the appellant against the additions made in the reassessment order were moot. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the invalidity of the reopening of assessment and consequent quashing of the assessment order.