2023 (3) TMI 116 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain - HELD THAT - Re-opening of the assessment in assessee s case was justifiable as the independent satisfaction was given. Besides that the assessee in the details filed in Income Tax Return did not consider the Jantri Value in computation of gain which is the disputed fact by the Revenue. Therefore ground no.1 is dismissed. LTCG Computation - As from the perusal of the records it can be seen that in the return of income in respect of land and the value as determined by the DVO is approximately 8.95% higher but less than 10%. This was never disputed or controverted by the Revenue at any point of time. As per third proviso to Section 50C brought on statute w.e.f. 01.04.2019 the Tribunal on various occasions has applied the said proviso retrospectively as the difference is less than 10% in the actual value taken than the DVO s value. Therefore ground no.2 is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued u/s.148 for reopening assessment u/s.147 and passing order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147.
2. Addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Notice for Reopening Assessment:
The Assessee contested the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment under Section 147. The Assessee argued that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without tangible material or independent evidence, challenging the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). The Assessee emphasized the absence of any cogent material evidence for the reopening, citing various judicial pronouncements. However, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating that the independent satisfaction was given for reopening the assessment. Additionally, it was noted that the Assessee did not consider the Jantri Value in the computation of capital gain, a disputed fact pointed out by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Addition on Account of Long Term Capital Gain:
Regarding the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), the Assessee contended that the property sold was litigated, making it impossible to sell at market rate, and provided evidence of the litigations in the sale deed. The Assessee argued that Section 50C should not apply in this case. Moreover, the Assessee highlighted that the value declared in the return of income was approximately 8.95% higher but less than 10% compared to the value determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The Assessee urged that the value declared should be accepted based on various court decisions. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee, allowing this ground and partially allowing the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs.86,451 out of the total addition of Rs.3,43,830 on account of LTCG.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, quashing the reopening of assessment and deleting the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the extent of Rs.86,451. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised by the Assessee, considering legal provisions, arguments presented, and relevant judicial precedents to arrive at a reasoned decision.