Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER

2016 (9) TMI 1037 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - netting of interest for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) - Held that:- The petitioner had filed full details of such interest income along with the return itself along with the interest expenses. If the Assessing Officer was of the view that the same was not in order, he could have disallowed part of the claim. At any rate, this cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment beyond a period of four years since it cannot be stated that the petitioner had not disclosed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssistant Director of Incometax (Inv), Surat, conveyed to the petitioner that the value of the property mentioned in the sale deed is lower than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The petitioner was therefore, asked to explain whether capital gain was computed on the basis of section 50C of the Act. If yes, the petitioner would submit evidence, if no, the petitioner to show cause why adverse inference should not be drawn. This letter was received by the petitioner on 4.12.2007. O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ad also replied separately to the said authority under letter dated 2.1.2008. - The stand of the petitioner in such reply was rather vague and general. The petitioner did not deny the higher valuation adopted by the stamp duty authority or application of section 50C of the Act but merely generally and vaguely opposed any proposal for action. . In reply to this, the petitioner again made similar averments without drawing any further light on why the petitioner had not disclosed such developme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30.3.2011 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2005-2006. 2. Brief facts are as under. The petitioner Surat District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd is a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. For the assessment year 2005-2006, the petitioner had filed return of income on 15.10.2005 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of ₹ 1.5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice which, as can be seen, was done beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. In order to do so, he had recorded the following reasons : Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment : The assessee has sold its land at Survey No.185 at Katagram, Surat city for ₹ 42,00,000/and offered long term capital gain only on sale value mentioned in the sale document. Information was received by this office from the Naib Collector Stamp Duty Valuation Tant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s.80P of the IT Act without first deducing its interest expenses in contravention to section 80AB. It was held by the Assessing Officer in their assessment orders u/s.143(3) for the above three assessment years that the assessee did not adjust the interest expenses with the income deductible u/s.80P of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer had invoked section 80AB to net the income deductible u/s.80P with the amount of interest expenses of the assessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n that section, for the purpose of computing the deduction under that section, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income. 3. On this issue the deduction u/s 80P was disallowed at ₹ 81,13,580/for AY 200607, ₹ 1,74,82,509/for AY 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77; 79,11,629/on this issue. 4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the assessee's income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act. Hence, the case needs reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961. 3. The petitioner thereafter, raised objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening under a communication dated 15.12.2011. Such objections however, were rejected by an order dated 16.12.2011. 4. Taking us through the materials on record, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal assessment proceedings. The assessee had not withheld the relevant facts and that therefore, notice of reopening issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year was invalid. With respect to the long term capital gain, counsel drew our attention to a letter dated 28.11.2007 written by the Assistant Director of Incometax, Surat, in which he pointed out to the assessee that the valuation of the property mentioned in the sale deed was lower than the value adopted b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f assessment. Thus the fact that sale consideration was lower than the stamp valuation assessment was known to the income tax authorities even during the original assessment. Notice for reopening therefore, beyond a period of four years, could not have been issued. Regarding the netting of interest also, counsel submitted that full facts were on record. The petitioner had not withheld any relevant facts. The Assessing Officer therefore, could not have based his notice for reopening on this groun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the Assessing Officer had recorded proper reasons. The petitioner had not made true and full disclosures. The fact that the stamp valuation of registration of the sale deed was higher than the sale consideration indicated in the deed was known to the petitioner all along. Even in response to queries raised by the Assessing Officer, this important element was not disclosed. Reopening even beyond a period of four years was therefore, permissible. 6. We may address the second issue first since it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eopening the assessment beyond a period of four years since it cannot be stated that the petitioner had not disclosed true and full facts. 7. The first ground however, needs a closer scrutiny. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer is contending that the petitioner had sold the land for ₹ 42 lacs and offered long term capital gain on such sale value mentioned in the sale deed. He however, received information from the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, Surat, that the value of said la .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was presented for registration, the stamp duty authorities had dispute about such valuation. On 9.4.2007, Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, passed an order assessing the value of land for the purpose of registration at ₹ 71.07 lacs and demanded the deficient stamp duty of ₹ 2.44 lacs. This was conveyed to the purchaser of the land by the said order. It appears that upon the purchaser paying the deficient stamp duty as per such order, the document was registered on or around 12.4.2007. 9. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roduced a ledger account of the long term capital asset which recorded merely the credit of ₹ 41.72 lacs for the sale of land in question. 11. On 28.11.2007, the Assistant Director of Incometax, Surat, wrote to the petitioner as under : Details regarding immovable property transactions made by you in the above mentioned year have been gathered by this office. It is seen from the details that the value of property mentioned in the sale deed is lower than the value adopted by the stamp valua .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uthorized representative, then it is requested to furnish your letter of authorization in this regard. 12. It is undisputed that this letter was received by the petitioner on 4.12.2007 and promptly replied by the petitioner on 2.1.2008 as under : That apart, you will agree with the contention the seller has nothing to do with the payment of stamp duty as per valuation made by that authority because in every transaction of immovable property, it is the responsibility of the purchaser and therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppression of consideration of immovable property so transferred as presumed by you. However, as stated above, in the absence of the relevant details as required as above, my client is not in the position to understand about the transaction as relied upon by you. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I have once again to request you to supply the details/ documents/information/ materials if any, gathered and intended by you to take action u/s 50C of the Act in pursuance t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Producer's Union Ltd. (SUMUL). b. Property purchased was of agriculture land - Copy of Zoning Certificate is enclosed. c. The SUMUL the seller party has carried out valuation of the said property from H.T. Shah, Govt. Approved Valuer dated 29/08/2005 & he had adopted the rate of ₹ 275 per sq. mtr where as we had adopted the rate of ₹ 297/sq. Mtr (Rs.4200000/14113 sq. mtr.) while executing the sale deed hence there is no question of adopting lower amount for the purpose of ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for valuation of the property. Copy of Notice objection Reply filed by the assessee is enclosed. 3. Assessee has shown the value of property in the balance sheet on the basis of sale deed. In our opinion no adverse inference can be drawn taking into consideration the facts stated in point No.2 (a to e). 14. On 4.12.2007, the Assessing Officer framed assessment without disturbing the long term capital gain declared by the petitioner. 15. Few facts therefore, emerge which are as under : a) The pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of such capital asset. Even in reply to the queries raised under communication dated 23.11.2007 regarding details of long term capital gain, the petitioner made no further disclosure, except for producing ledger account of long term capital gain which contained only the figure of ₹ 41.72 lacs towards sale of this land. d) On 4.12.2007, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment accepting such declarations. 16. Section 50C of the Act pertains to special provision for full value o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under subsection (1) excee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 16A, clause (i) of subsection (1) and subsections (6) and (7) of section 23A, subsection (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealthtax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under subsection (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation 1].-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtained under subsection (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority referred to in subsection (1), the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.] 17. In terms of subsection (1) of section 50C of the Act, thus wherever the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of a capital asset, is less than the value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation. On the other hand under subsection( 2) of section 50C, it would be open for the assessee to question before the Assessing Officer the valuation adopted by such stamp duty authority. 18. Thus in terms of subsection( 1) of section 50C, the assessed value of the land at ₹ 71.07 lacs by such stamp duty authority would be deemed to be full sale consideration and therefore, assessable for capital gain on such basis, unless such valuation is questioned as provided in subsection( 2). The pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07. It was only after that, that during assessment, the Assessing Officer had asked the petitioner to supply the details of long term capital gain under a letter dated 23.11.2007. In reply to such letter, the petitioner provided no further information, except for pointing out that the land was sold for ₹ 42 lacs, by which time, we may recall the revised valuation by the stamp duty authority was already available. 20. It is by now well settled that the duty to disclose true and full facts n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deduction under the cumulative head expenditure . It is pleaded and stated that the petitioner was not required to disclose the said fact as when they had filed the return, section 14A was not in the statute book. Sequitur there was no omission and failure on the part of the assesseepetitioner to make full and true disclosure. The term failure on the part of the assessee is not restricted only to the incometax return and the columns of the incometax return or the tax audit report. This is the fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n is on the assessee to make full and true disclosure. This view was reiterated in case of Dalmia P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax and another reported in (2012) 348 ITR 469 (Delhi). 21. The contention of the petitioner that the Assessing Officer was aware about such difference in two valuations based on the letter dated 28.11.2007 cannot be accepted. The said letter was written not by the Assessing Officer but by the investigation wing of the department which was till then, on prima facie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rse inference should not be drawn. This letter was received by the petitioner on 4.12.2007. On 6.12.2007, it appears that the purchaser of the land had in respect to a similar letter from investigation wing contended that the Government approved valuer had assessed rate of land at ₹ 275/per square meter at which the land was sold. It was further pointed out that stamp valuation authority had earlier adopted market value of ₹ 1.42 crores but after objection reduced it to ₹ 71.07 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version