TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd enquiries were made during the assessment proceedings regarding the quantum of capital gains, it must follow that the Assessing Officer had while passing the order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act had taken view on facts and in law as in force at the relevant time. Thus, this is a case of change of opinion. One must not loose the sight that the reassessment proceedings are not proceedings to review of the order already been passed but only a power to reassess. As observed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 'We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess'. - Income Tax Appeal No. 102 Of 2016 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as per sale deed of the land. However, the assessee failed to furnish the copy of the sale deed of the land. Subsequently, it came to notice that the land was valued on the day of the sale by Stamp Duty Authority at ₹ 2,83,71,988/. In view of the provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act, the capital gain is to be computed by adopting the value of the land as determined by Stamp Duty Authority as sales consideration. The omission on the part of the assessee, resulted in escapement of income of capital gain by ₹ 59,71,938/. 4. The Respondent objected to the issue the reopening notice dated 11.3.2010 as being without jurisdiction as it is based on change of opinion. This as the issue was subject of consideration in pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd before the Assessing Officer and the issue of computation of capital gain was subject matter of enquiry during regular assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, the impugned order held that the reopening notice dated 11.3.2010 being based on change of opinion is bad in law. Therefore, the view of the CIT(A) as recorded in his order dated 18.12.2012 was upheld. 7. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the Assessing Officer omitted to consider Section 50C of the Act while passing the order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the reopening notice dated 11.3.2010 is valid in law. In support reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 55 Taxmann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order was passed. The basis of reopening the assessment in A.L.A. Firm (Supra) was the decision in the case of G.R. Ramachari Co. (Supra) coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of assessment proceedings. In this case it is not the case of the Revenue that the Assessing Officer was not aware of Section 50C of the Act at the time of passing the Assessement Order dated 26.12.2007 under Section 143 of the Act. In this case the trigger to reopen assessment proceedings as recorded in the reasons is non-furnishing of copy of the sale deed by the Respondent. This has been found factually to be incorrect. Therefore, once the sale deed was before Assessing Officer and enquiries were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
