Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 949 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee has sold an immovable property as not shown the above transaction in the AIR Schedule of his return of income - assessee has not shown capital gain under the head capital gain on sale of Plot which was sold through an agreement for a consideration of ₹ 38,50,000/- in his ROI - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has neither disclosed the transaction in question nor offered any capital gain from the said transaction then the information received by the AO based on these documents, to which the assessee is a party, constitutes the tangible material to form the belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. As regards the objection of the ld.AR of the assessee that reassessment ought to have been made u/s 153C of the Act as against u/s 147 of the Act, we find in the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere it is mentioned that the said document was sent by the AO of the searched person after recording his satisfaction. Even otherwise, if the conditions as stipulated u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act are not satisfied then the AO can invoke the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act. Hence the decision relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT (supra) cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the AO has stated in the reasons recorded that the documents were seized and forwarded by the AO of the searched person. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. Thus the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of the amount received for transfer of an immovable property - HELD THAT:- Where the assessee is also a party to the illegal transaction of purchase and sale of the land in question then the alleged stand of the assessee of subsequent cancellation of the agreement does not inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that the assessee claimed to have purchased this property in question vide sale deed dated 29-10-2010 for a consideration of ₹ 4.00 lacs only whereas the said plot of land was sold by the assessee vide agreement dated 25-12-2011 for a consideration of ₹ 38.50 lacs. In the absence of any development during this intervening period of one year from the date of purchase and till the date of sale, the appreciation of value from ₹ 4.00 lacs to ₹ 38.50 lacs indicates the involvement of the parties in mischievous acts of showing the minimum amount of purchase consideration by the assessee in comparison to the sale consideration shown in the sale agreement. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substance or merit in the appeal of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 2 and 3 of the assessee are dismissed.
|