Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Kusumben Sumant Bhai Patel vs. Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (05 May 2021)

AO gets jurisdiction to reopen assessment only after recording the reasons for reopening and thereafter, issuing notice under Section 148 of IT Act within prescribed time

MANU/IH/0149/2021

Direct Taxation

The assessee individual, filed her return of income admitting income of Rs.2,27,890. AO received information that the assessee, along with 4 others, had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.58,00,000 which was registered in SRO, Hyderabad. It was also learnt that, the market value of the property is Rs.1,14,09,000 as per Sub-Registrar on which stamp duty and the registration charges were paid. The AO observed that as per the provisions of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the SRO value should have been adopted while computing the capital gain. Therefore, observing that, the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' has escaped the assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the IT Act.

The AO observed that as per Section 50C of the Act, the market value of the property is Rs.1,14,09,000 and therefore, the long term capital gain should be at Rs.96,80,460 and after allowing deduction under Section 54F and 54EC, he worked out the long term capital gain at Rs.62,50,460 and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment and also the additions made by the AO. The CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal.

The AO gets jurisdiction to reopen the assessment only after he records the reasons for reopening and thereafter, issues notice under Section 148 of IT Act within the prescribed time and only on fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. None of these conditions have been fulfilled by the AO. Therefore, the re-assessment proceedings were not initiated validly and therefore, the re-assessment order is set aside. Therefore, the assessee's grounds against validity of assessment are allowed.

Tags : RE-ASSESSMENT   INITIATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved