Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court is of the view that the impugned order in over-ruling the objection of the petitioner, on the ground of difference, between the purported guideline value of the property at Rs. 16,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. is not available as it is inspired due to change of opinion. That apart, the records that have been filed before this Court is Rs. 16,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. is for the commercial property and not for residential property. The SRO s letter dated 04.10.2022 confirms that value that was adopted only Rs. 12,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. That apart Section 47 A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, it is the Jurisdictional Registering Officer, who is the competent authority under the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 to come to a conclusion, whether there was any under valua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... includes the cost of the land purchased and the immovable property namely a residential house in T.Nagar, Chennai. 4. The petitioner filed a return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,12,35,418/-. The return was assessed after notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 19.09.2016 followed by another notice under Section 142 (1) r.w.s 129 of the Act on 12.09.2017 . The assessment order was ultimately passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act, whereby the return filed by the petitioner on 31.08.2015 was accepted by admitting to the taxable income of the petitioner as 1,18,16,740/-. The four-year period had expired on 31.03.2020 . The reasons forthcoming for reopening the assessment as communicated to the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee has not declared correct value of the property as discussed above in his return of income as well as during the entire assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. Hence, it is clear that there is the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material/facts necessary for the assessment during the assessment proceeding. 6. The challenge to the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 , is twofold, as there is invocation of machinery under Section 148 , for the purpose of reassessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 , was beyond the period of limitation. It is submitted that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the income in the return filed on 31.08.2015 , and therefore, it is subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)]. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order with over-ruling of objection is liable to be quashed. 11. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the decision of this Court rendered in Chinnathambi Rajeswari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 17.04.2024 in W.P.(MD).No.4155 of 2022, dealing with almost identical case in hand. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent on other hand would submit that the submission reopening of the assessment was beyond the normal period of four years, cannot be countenanced, as the last date for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 31.03.2020 . It is su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment was in order and therefore, the speaking order impugned herein need be interfered with. 16. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the impugned order in over-ruling the objection of the petitioner, on the ground of difference, between the purported guideline value of the property at Rs. 16,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. is not available as it is inspired due to change of opinion. 17. That apart, the records that have been filed before this Court is Rs. 16,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. is for the commercial property and not for residential property. The SRO s letter dated 04.10.2022 confirms that value that was adopted only Rs. 12,000/- Per. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates