9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for Assessment Year (for short 'AY') 2009-10 and order dated 05.06.2014 rejecting the objections. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed Income Tax Return for AY 2009-10. The assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act was finalized on 29.12.2011. Notice dated 31.03.2014 under Section 148 of Act was issued on the ground that deduction under Section 54B of the Act was wrongly claimed for the agricultural land sold by the brothers of the petitioner. The objection filed by petitioner were rejected on 05.06.2014. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer (for brevity 'AO') with regard to dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s 54B of the IT Act, 1961. 2 However, you have claimed to inherit agricultural land through a will along-with your 4 brothers. Though the land was earlier being used for agricultural purpose, but it was in the purview of urban land. Now the land has been sold out after dividing into a number of plots of different measurement with a view to earning the profit by the act of plotting the land vide 18 registered deeds executed. This act of yourself clear-cut suggest that the plotting is an act for earning income and the transaction cannot be covered under the income from Long term capital gain as claimed by you. In such circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the plotting of land and sale thereof should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or initiation of reassessment proceedings are identical. The petitioner raised objection that issuance of notice under section 148 is a result of change of opinion. The objection was brushed aside vide order dated 05.06.2014. 8. It is a settled law that inspite of amendment made in the year 1998 under section 147 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on change of opinion. 9. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in (2010) 2 SCC 723 observed: 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. 10. The opinion expressed by the A.O on the issue involved may be express or by necessary implications. In the case in hand, explanation on two issues was sought by the A.O. One of the issues being of deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Eicher Limited reported in (2007) 294 ITR 310 and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 263 ITR 437 held as under: 12. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid position that: (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change of opinion; (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and is decided in favour of the assessee. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of "change of opinion" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom) wherein it has been held as follows: It was also sought to be contended that since the assessing officer had not expressed any opinion regarding this matter in his original assessment order, it could not be said that there was any change of opinion in this case. In our view, once all the material was before the Assessing officer and he chose not to deal with the several contentions raised by the Petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all the material was placed before him. To a similar effect is the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
