9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the land in Uthandi Village and also noted the fact that the Gazettee notification issued by the Government of Tamilnadu was very much available when the original assessment was completed and the assessing officer had no new tangible material to clarify its reopening. By relying upon the decision in the case of NKV Krishna 2013 (9) TMI 1258 - ITAT CHENNAI it was held that the land sold was an agricultural land. A crucial aspect was taken note of the Tribunal, i.e., in the case of assessee's spouse, who was also co-owner of the very same property, the property was treated as agricultural land and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the said finding remain undisturbed. The above will clearly show that the re-openin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for brevity] is directed against the order passed by the ITAT, 'A' Bench in I.T.A.No.2710/Chny/2017 dated 13.12.2018 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 3. The appellant / revenue has filed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quashing the reassessment order made under Section 147 on the ground that it was merely case of change of opinion especially when the AO had not formed any opinion in the first instance on the issue relating to transferred capital assets? 2. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper in entertaining an alternate claim made u/s 54F, when the original claims should have been sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere agricultural lands and did not offer any capital gain on such transfer. This was a ground on which assessment was re-opened by stating that income chargeable to capital gain has escaped assessment. In the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that lands were agricultural lands, however, the assessing officer did not accept the same and assessed the sale consideration under 'long term capital gains'. The assessing officer also did not give benefit of cost of acquisition, since the assessee failed to submit parent documents of the said property. Accordingly, the assessing officer assessed the entire sale consideration of ₹ 5.02/- Crores under 'long term capital loss'. 6. Further, the assessing officer obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning of the assessment as well as the finding of the assessing officer that the transfer of the asset was liable for long term capital gains, the rejection of the alternate submission by claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of cost of acquisition of Uthandi Property. The CIT(A) upon perusal of the sale deed dated 05.06.1992, which discloses the sale consideration of ₹ 4 Lakhs, directed the assessing officer to recalculate the capital gains by granting due benefit of cost of acquisition as per Law. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, challenging the re-opening, and treating the land which was sold as capital asset and holding it to be liable for long term capital gains, assessee preferred an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 236 ITR 34 [SC] [Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others] wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which, the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material was not a thing to be considered, at the stage of reopening. By placing reliance on this decision, the learned counsel submitted that in the original assessment, there is no finding rendered by the assessing officer with regard to the classification of the land and therefore, the reopening of the assessment is valid in law. 12. To examine as to whether, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the re-opening of the assessment, we need to examine the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide letter dated 06.01.2014 during the original assessment proceedings had brought the entire details about the sale of the land in Uthandi Village and also noted the fact that the Gazettee notification issued by the Government of Tamilnadu was very much available when the original assessment was completed and the assessing officer had no new tangible material to clarify its reopening. By relying upon the decision in the case of NKV Krishna, it was held that the land sold was an agricultural land. 14. Apart from that, a crucial aspect was taken note of the Tribunal, i.e., in the case of assessee's spouse, who was also co-owner of the very same property, the property was treated as agricultural land and the assessment was completed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
