2020 (9) TMI 320 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - Assessee has not filed any application for admission of additional ground/plea. Assessee even has not filed the reasons recorded by the A.O. and in absence of the reasons recorded, this issue raised by the assessee cannot be decided. Assessee except raising this ground, has not pointed out as to how the reopening of the assessment is invalid - assessee has never objected to the validity of the reopening either before the A.O. or before the ld. CIT(A) and has not sought any leave of this Tribunal to raise such a fresh plea/ground first time, therefore, we reject grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee. Addition on account of long term capital gain - FMV determination - A.O. received information regarding sale of immovable property by the assessee alongwith two other co-owners - HELD THAT - When the property in question as assessed by the Stamp Value Authority as non-agricultural land then the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 should have been considered for non-agricultural land instead of agricultural land. No substance in this contention of the assessee because the land being an agricultural land is not in dispute. Due to development of the area over the period, the land is no more exempted u/s 2(14) of the Act and the assessee has accepted this fact by declaring the long term capital gain on sale of this land. Even otherwise, the assessee has not disputed the location of the land which is one of the most important factors for determining the fair market value at the time of sale. Since this land in question has been inherited by the assessee alongwith two other legal heirs, therefore, the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 would be taken as per the status of the land on that date. Subsequent change in the surrounding circumstances would not alter the status of the land as on 01/04/1981. A.O. has rightly taken the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 by taking a comparative sale instance. The second objection raised by the assessee is against determination of the fair market value by the DVO U/s 50C(2) though, the assessee has contended that the value of the land should have been taken as it is mentioned in the sale deed. However, the fair market value determined by the DVO has not been questioned by the assessee by bringing any material or facts contrary to the said valuation. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Issuance of notice under Section 148 without proper sanction under Section 151.
3. Determination of long-term capital gain of ?18,89,362.
4. Invocation of provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Computation of indexed cost of acquisition at ?17,105.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147:
The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, arguing that it was illegal, unjustified, and arbitrary. However, the Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee did not file any application for admission of additional grounds and failed to provide the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening. Consequently, without the necessary objections or recorded reasons, the Tribunal rejected these grounds.

2. Issuance of Notice under Section 148 without Proper Sanction under Section 151:
Similar to the first issue, the assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued without proper sanction under Section 151. The Tribunal observed that this ground was also not raised before the AO or CIT(A) and no application for additional grounds was filed. The assessee did not provide any substantial argument or evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground as well.

3. Determination of Long-Term Capital Gain of ?18,89,362:
The AO received information about the sale of immovable property by the assessee and two co-owners for ?10,00,000, while the Stamp Value Authority valued it at ?71,13,637. The AO issued a notice under Section 148 and subsequently determined the fair market value through the District Valuation Officer (DVO) at ?57,19,400, attributing ?19,06,467 as the assessee's 1/3rd share. The long-term capital gain was computed after considering the indexed cost of acquisition.

The assessee argued that the land was agricultural and should not have been valued as residential/commercial. The Tribunal found no substance in this argument, noting that the land's status as agricultural was not in dispute, but its location and development over time justified the valuation. The Tribunal upheld the AO's determination of the fair market value and the resultant long-term capital gain.

4. Invocation of Provisions of Section 50C:
The assessee challenged the invocation of Section 50C, which deals with the deemed full value consideration for the transfer of capital assets. The AO referred the matter to the DVO, who determined the fair market value. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any contrary evidence to dispute the DVO's valuation. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, and the Tribunal found no error or illegality in the authorities' orders, thus upholding the same.

5. Computation of Indexed Cost of Acquisition at ?17,105:
The assessee contended that the AO incorrectly computed the indexed cost of acquisition. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a comparative sale instance to determine the fair market value as of 01/04/1981 and found no substance in the assessee's contention. The Tribunal upheld the AO's computation, noting that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to contradict the valuation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the authorities below on all grounds. The issues regarding the validity of reopening the assessment, issuance of notice without proper sanction, determination of long-term capital gain, invocation of Section 50C, and computation of the indexed cost of acquisition were all decided against the assessee. The Tribunal found no error or illegality in the authorities' actions and confirmed their decisions.

← Previous Next →