9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1066 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Held that - AO has reviewed the assessment order which is not allowed under the Act. The ld. AO did not bring any tangible material on record to show that the income has escaped assessment. Therefore, considering the above factual position and the case law, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of reassessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the exemption claim under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Jurisdiction of Reassessment under Sections 147/148: The primary issue in the appeal was whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 were legal and within jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice under Section 148, believing that the assessee's income had escaped assessment due to an excess exemption claim of ?13,45,760 under Section 54F. The AO's belief was based on the fact that the assessee had invested in a property and claimed an exemption which was not shown in the original assessment. The assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was without jurisdiction and illegal. It was argued that all relevant documents and papers were available during the original assessment under Section 143(3), and no new tangible material was brought on record by the AO to justify the reopening. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including the case of Mahesh Pal Arora Vs. ITO, where it was held that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the AO had reviewed the original assessment order without bringing any new evidence to indicate that income had escaped assessment. The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd, which supported the view that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that there was no valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. Validity of the Exemption Claim under Section 54F: The second issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed under Section 54F for the investment in a residential property. The AO had added ?13,45,760 to the assessee's income, denying the exemption on the grounds that the property was not purchased within the stipulated time frame. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee had taken possession of the property on 10.01.2007, which was beyond the two-year period from the date of the capital gain. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 54F as the purchase was not completed within the required time frame. The assessee argued that the exemption under Section 54F should be allowed as the investment was made within the stipulated period, and the possession date should not affect the exemption claim. The assessee cited various case laws to support the claim. However, since the tribunal had already quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and tangible material, it did not adjudicate the merits of the exemption claim under Section 54F, rendering this issue infructuous. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 due to lack of new tangible material and jurisdiction. Consequently, the tribunal did not address the merits of the exemption claim under Section 54F, as the primary issue of reassessment validity was decided in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/10/2016.
|
