Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 475 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - sale of land and building - Held that:- It is evident that the petitioners had asserted that they had sold their ownership rights in the New Delhi property, which was accepted by the relevant assessing officer and certain benefits were permitted to the petitioners on such basis. The deed of sale was available with the department and it was evident therefrom that the ownership rights were transferred by the petitioners and not merely their leasehold rights, since the leasehold rights in the property had been converted to ownership rights between the agreement for sale and the deed of conveyance. - Decided against revenue Valuation of the property - Held that:- For the purpose of the valuation of the property, including its cost of acquisition, the petitioners had relied on the report of a licensed valuer. A valuation report is, loosely speaking, an opinion based on the facts narrated in support of such opinion. The entirety of the valuation report was before the department in course of the previous reassessment or scrutiny assessment and the relevant assessing officer accepted the same. The present attempt to question the valuation report amounts to a change of opinion or a review of the assessment, which is impermissible. The assessee had disclosed all facts and the basis for the valuation. That was accepted by the department. That is not a matter which can be reopened by claiming that there was a mistake in the valuation report.- Decided against revenue Assessment of cost or sale price of the New Delhi property - inclusion of amount received on account of rent or occupation charges - Held that:- It is evident that the government was in possession of the property for a considerable period without paying any occupation charges therefor. In the arbitration proceedings instituted by the petitioners and other co-sharers (they were then all co-lessees in respect of the property but co-lessors qua the occupant) an award was made for payment of damages on account of rent or occupation charges. It is nobody’s case that such amount was received in the relevant assessment year; at least that is not asserted in the recorded reasons. Further, in the context of what should be the consideration for the sale of a property or the assessment of any capital gain thereon, the occupation charges received is not a relevant factor and the omission to mention the same cannot be seen to be any failure to disclose any material fact pertaining to the relevant assessment. Indeed, it is such amount as was collectively awarded to the petitioners and the co-sharers by the arbitral award that may be the root cause for the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Since the receipt of such sum may have been in an assessment year other than the assessment year for which it was due, the petitioners claimed the share of the money received on such account as a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. The department has rejected such contention and a revision is pending on such score. However, such aspect of the matter has no nexus either with the valuation of the property or with the relevant assessment. - Decided against revenue Non disclosure of possession of the property - Held that:- Such assertion is demonstrably wrong since the information furnished pursuant to queries made in course of the previous reassessment covered such matter - Decided against revenue Deduction claimed under Section 54 - wrongful claim on the ground that it was a sale of the leasehold rights in a property and not a sale of a house property - Held that:- As noticed above, the leasehold rights had been converted to ownership rights prior to the sale deed being executed and such fact was known to the department in course of the previous reassessment and scrutiny assessment. In any event, when the deduction was allowed, the assessing officer is deemed to have taken such matter into consideration and any reassessment on such score would amount to a change of opinion or review which is impermissible. - Decided against revenue
|