9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. 3. In the assessee's appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in as much as it is against the Appellant is erroneous, against the provisions of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and the reassessment is not barred by limitation. 2.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decisions relied on by him are misquoted and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 2.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there are no fresh materials available with the Assessing Officer to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147 and reopening merely on a change of opinion is against the mandate of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore ought to have held that the reopening is merely on the basis of change of opinion and invalid in law. 3. Merits: 3.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same is erroneous and misconceived. 3.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had not defaulted in payment of Advance Tax and the same was also accepted by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Assessment Year. The return filed by the assessee came to be processed and the assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 23.12.2011 accepting the returned income. It was a submission that in the course of the assessment, the AO had verified the sale of the part of the inherited land. It was a submission that the assessee had received cash of Rs. 1,97,10,000/- which was deposited in the Savings Bank A/c. It was a submission that the cash deposited of Rs. 1,97,10,000/- represented the sale proceeds and the rental advance. It was a submission that the assessee had also filed a letter dated 20.12.2011 before the AO, wherein, the details of the transactions were clearly brought out. It was a submission that 27436 sq.ft. of the land had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration as attributable to needs to be examined and assessed as per the capital gain provision of IT Act." 5. It was a submission that the re-opening was bad in law in so far as all the details had been verified by the AO in the course of the original assessment and re-opening was only on the basis of a change of opinion. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the reply filed by the assessee in respect of the re-opening, which is extracted as follows: I am in receipt of your letter in C.No.Scrutiny AY 2009-10/2016-17 dated 28-11-2016 in the above matter wherein you have stated that on a perusal of my assessment records, you have found that I have not admitted in the return of income filed for the a.y. 20092010, the applicable capital gains on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar from the above details and the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that these have been made available to the Assessing Officer at the time of making original assessment u/s.143(3) of the 'Act', evidenced by the impugned assessment order dated 23-12-2011. Consequently, there being no failure on my part, the assessment could not be reopened after the expiry of permitted four years from the end of impugned assessment year 2009-10 after 31-03-2014. In the circumstances, I submit that your observation that I have not admitted the transactions and consequently, you can reopen the assessment beyond 31st March, 2014 is obviously a statement made without application of mind and to justify the action of the Revenue to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee filed during the course of the original assessment dated 23.12.2011 shows that the assessee has claimed the land is purely agricultural in nature. However, the proceedings of the Commissioner, Kundrathur, dated 27.03.2007 shows otherwise. In fact, this is an order issued by the Commissioner, to the assessee himself. The assessee has also paid the development charges in respect of the said development. This being so, we are of the view that this is a fresh evidence available to the AO which clearly shows that the re-opening is not on the basis of a change of opinion. This being so, we are of the view that re-opening is valid and uphold the same. Here it would also be worthwhile to mention that the assessee has not challenged the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
