TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inized claim and no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts and at the same time directing the reopening of the assessment, was not in any manner incongruent. His observations or conclusions for invalidating the assessment were based on materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of issuing the notice for reopening. His directions were based on the materials which came before him during the appellate proceedings. By assessee's own account, correct valuation as on 1.4.1981 of the land in question would be ₹ 108.27 per sq mtr. This would have two elements. One, that the original scrutiny would no longer be valid since there was an outside alien material which had later on come on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reopening such assessment under section 148 of the Act on 19.8.2010 in which his dispute was with respect to computation of cost of acquisition of land for the purpose of computing long term capital gain or loss on sale of such land. The assessee had shown the cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 135.84 per sq. mtr. as against the valuation of ₹ 80 per sq. mtr. shown by the registered valuer. According to the Assessing Officer, in the reasons recorded, instead of capital loss of ₹ 15.80 lacs, the assessee had made a long term capital gain of ₹ 1.11 crores through sale of land. The Assessing Officer made assessment accordingly under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by passing order on 9.11.2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of land would be ₹ 108.27 per sq mtr. He referred to the materials produced by the assessee in this respect and gave the following directions : 5.1 Thus, as admitted by the AR also, the correct cost of acquisition of saleable lans should have been ₹ 108.27 per sq.mtr and the long term capital gain in the present case should have been ₹ 21,51,968/in place of long term loss of ₹ 14,90,955/shown by the appellant in its return of income. The finding that the correct rate of cost of acquisition of saleable land as on 01.04.1981 should have been ₹ 108.27 and hence the appellant had adopted in correct cost of acquisition of the saleable land for computing the long term capital gain during the course of orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the value of land @ 80 per sq mt as on 01.04.1981 and after indexation of the value of land as on. 01.04. l981,the assessee had arrived the cost of acquisition. While working the cost of acquisition of land the assessee has taken rate of land @ 135.84 per sq mt on the basis of entire land area and did not exclude the part of land admeasuring 15506 sq mt which was not saleable on account of being road and common area. Therefore, the cost of saleable land as on 01.04. 1981 should have been worked out as under: Total cost as on 01/04/1981 59338 @ ₹ 80 per sq.mt ₹ 47,51,040 Total saleable Land (excluding of 15506 sq mt being road and com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limitation in terms of section 150 of the Act but would not form the basis for reopening the assessment which would depend solely on the jurisdictional requirements being satisfied. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Parikh for the department opposed the petition contending that fresh material was brought on record during the appellate proceedings. CIT(Appeals) therefore, made suitable observations and gave directions. These directions were not challenged by the assessee. In collateral proceedings, he cannot question them. 12. The central issue involved in the return filed and in the subsequent assessment concerns the question of long term capital gain of the assessee upon sale of land. The valuer had adopted ₹ 80 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner having accepted and acquiesced in the order cannot question the wisdom or authority of CIT(Appeals) to issue such directions. Equally importantly, the stand of CIT(Appeals) in on one hand annulling the reassessment on the grounds of previously scrutinized claim and no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully material facts and at the same time directing the reopening of the assessment, was not in any manner incongruent. His observations or conclusions for invalidating the assessment were based on materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of issuing the notice for reopening. His directions were based on the materials which came before him during the appellate proceedings. By assessee's own acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
