9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Incometax Act, ('the Act' for short) on 30.3.2015 accepting the returned income. 3. To reopen such assessment, the respondent issued the impugned the notice, as can be seen was done beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons : " In this case, return of income filed by the assessee on 18.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 38,99,360/. The case was selected under scrutiny and the assessment was finalized u/s.143(3) on 30.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs. 38,99,360/. Scrutiny of the records revealed that, the assessee has claimed and allowed deduction of Rs. 4,54,15,006/u/ s.54B of the IT Act in computation of Short Term Capital Gain for the sale of four agricultural lands. Subsequently, it was found that the lands sold were held by the assessee for less than two years or lands sold were nonagricultural land. The details of which are as under : Purchase value Purchase value Description of property Document No. Sale value Short Term Capital Gain Exemption claimed Remarks 5421 dt. 11344250 Village 5621 dt. 25387755 14043505 14043505 With the 03.05.11 (purchase valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal scrutiny assessment. After thorough examination, the Assessing Officer accepted the declaration made by the petitioner. Any attempt on his part now to reexamine these issues could amount to change of opinion. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mrs. Bhatt for the Department opposed the petition contending that the petitioner's claim of long term capital gain was not supported by necessary facts. The petitioner has not held the agriculture land for more than two years before transfer and there was no evidence that the land was put to agriculture use in the last two years before sale. These aspects were not examined by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. 7. We may recall the notice for reopening is based on the Assessing Officer's belief that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act in relation to the proceeds received upon sale of agricultural lands which claim was not sustainable. His contentions were that these properties were not held by the assessee for the requisite period before sale and in some cases the lands were not put to agriculture use for two years prior to sale. Perusal of the materials would show that during the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account alongwith evidences were provided. 11. On 26.3.2015, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain why the valuation of disposed of property not be adopted in terms of Section 50C of the Act, since higher valuation was shown for the stamp duty purpose. To this, the assessee replied under letter dated 30.3.2015 pointing out that though in the balancesheet the actual sale consideration received by the assessee is shown, for the purpose of incometax valuation as per Section 50C is adopted. 12. It can thus be seen that the assessee had made necessary claims in the return filed in relation to the proceeds out of sale of lands. The claim included the deduction under Section 54B of the Act. The Assessing Officer examined the transactions and the petitioner's claim during the assessment proceedings. As noted multiple queries were raised. All such queries were answered. Documents called for were supplied. It was only after thorough investigation that the Assessing Officer passed order of assessment. It would be open for the Assessing Officer to reexamine such a claim on the premise that one more angle involved in the claim required consideration which had not taken place du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42. Bearing in mind these conflicting interests, if we revert back to central issue in debate, it can hardly be disputed that once the Assessing Officer notices a certain claim made by the assessee in the return filed, has some doubt about eligibility of such a claim and therefore, raises queries, extracts response from the assessee, thereafter in what manner such claim should be treated in the final order of assessment, is an issue on which the assessee would have no control whatsoever. Whether the Assessing Officer allows such a claim, rejects such a claim or partially allows and partially rejects the claim, are all options available with the Assessing Officer, over which the assessee beyond trying to persuade the Assessing Officer, would have no control whatsoever. Therefore, while framing the assessment, allowing the claim fully or partially, in what manner the assessment order should be framed, is totally beyond the control of the assessee. If the Assessing Officer, therefore, after scrutinizing the claim minutely during the assessment proceedings, does not reject such a claim, but chooses not to give any reasons for such a course of action that he adopts, it can hardly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
