9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly shows that the re-opening is not on the basis of a change of opinion. This being so, we are of the view that re-opening is valid and uphold the same. It would also be worthwhile to mention that the assessee has not challenged the additions on merits neither before the CIT(A) nor before us. The assessee has only challenged the issue of re-opening as also the levy of interest u/s.234B - In respect of the issue of the levy of interest u/s.234B, it is found that the levy is compensatory in nature, the same is mandatory and we find no error in the levy. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.2396/Chny/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Shri Abraham P.George, Accountant Member And Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member Appellant by : Mr.Ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) ought to have therefore appreciated that the Proviso to Section 147 squarely applies to the facts of the Appellant and the impugned notice issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year is illegal and void. 2.5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that mere omission in the scrutiny assessment proceedings cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment and the same would amount to review of order, which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the predecessor Assessing Officer has applied his mind and formed an opinion before passing the order u/s.143(3). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e first time without appreciating the fact that the regular assessment was already completed u/s.143(3) without charging of interest u/s.234B. 3.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had not defaulted and is not liable to pay interest u/s.234B in the original regular assessment u/s.143(3) and therefore levy of interest u/s.234B in reassessment proceedings for the first time is not valid. 3.5. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) insofar as it affirms the order of the Assessing Officer is therefore biased, misconceived and without any application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and against the provisions of law. 4. The Appellant contests all the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the assessee had received rental advance of ₹ 50,15,000/- from TATA Company who was now his tenant. It was a submission that in the letter, it was specifically mentioned that the land was purely agricultural in nature and the amount was received only by way of cash on various dates from various parties. It was a submission that a notice u/s.148 came to be issued on the assessee on 31.03.2016. The reasons recorded for re-opening was shown at Page No.5 of the Paper Book, wherein, it has recorded as follows: As requested by you, the reasons for reopening is reproduced as under: On perusal of records, it is observed that the assessee was in receipt of properties by partition measuring 54,737/- Sq.ft on 30.11.2006. The market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the then Income Tax Officer, Ward I(1), Tambaram, Chennai - 45 dated 23-12-2001, wherein the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned that I have sold the land inherited from my mother and out of the sale proceeds, two properties of land amounting to ₹ 1,20,00,000/- had been purchased by me and she has further stated that all these have been accounted through bank and that copies of bank statements of ICICI Bank and all sale deeds have also been filed by me and they have been verified. It is also seen from the records that my Authorized Representative has, in the course of assessment proceedings, filed all the details including name of the Purchaser, date of sale, survey number and area sold as also the sale consideration and the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aped assessment and to bring which income, the present assessment is sought to have been reopened u/s.147 of the Act . 6. It was a submission that the re-opening was not permissible on the basis of a change of opinion. 7. In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the AO had come into possession of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Kundrathur Panchayat Union dated 27.03.2007. As per the said proceedings, the land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes and permits had also been granted and development charges paid by the assessee. It was a submission that consequently, it was noticed that the claim of the assessee that the properties sold is agricultural land was not correct in so far as, as early as on 27.03.2007, the property h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
