9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. 7,05,250/-. As is discernible from the assessment order the assessee had thereafter revised his return of income on 01.01.2012, disclosing an income of Rs. 7,07,900/-. 3. On the basis of information that was gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings of the assessee for A.Y.2013-14, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 had sold lands at Village : Sakri for a sale consideration which was substantially lower than its market value, as under: Sl. No. Description of property Sale Value Market value 1. Land at Sakri 26,55,000/- 23,08,200/- 2. Land at Sakri 55,99,000/- 1,52,62,900/- Observing that the assessee had in his return of income adopted the amount of actual sale consideration and not the market value for the purpose of computing capital gain on sale of the aforesaid lands, the A.O reopened his case u/s. 147 of the Act. In compliance to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act the assessee filed his return of income on 09.09.2016, declaring an income of Rs. 37,80,900 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf revealed beyond doubt that the income from the sale of the lands in question was rightly disclosed by him under the head "capital gains". As regards the claim of the assessee that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was in excess as in comparison to its FMV, the A.O referred the matter to the Valuation Officer who as per his valuation report dated 28.11.2016 estimated the value of the properties sold at Rs. 75,40,600/- and Rs. 29,01,800/-. Adverting to the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, it was observed by the A.O that though the assessee in support of his aforesaid claim had placed on record copies of certain purchase deeds of land, however, no documentary evidence to support his claim of having purchased land at Village: Duraghat was filed before him. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of the aforesaid facts disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 18 lac i.e to the extent the same was claimed qua the purchase of land at Village: Duraghat. 5. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, viz. (i). assessing of the income/surplus arising from sale of lands at Village: Sakri under the head capital gains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as to whether or not, the lower authorities had rightly declined the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54B of Rs. 18 lac qua his claim of purchase of land at Village-Duraghat; and (iii) that as to whether or not the lower authorities have rightly triggered the provisions of section 50C of the Act for re-computing the capital gains on sale of land in question in the hands of the assessee. 9. As observed by us hereinabove, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had in his original return of income that was filed on 30.09.2012, which, thereafter, was revised on 01.10.2012, disclosed the income from sale of land at Village: Sakri under the head "capital gain". Admittedly, the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O u/s. 147 of the Act, inter alia, for the reason that the sale value adopted by the assessee for computing his income under the head "capital gains" on sale of the lands in question was substantially lower than the FMV of the said lands. Also, as is discernible from the records, the assessee in his return of income filed u/s. 148 of the Act had re-characterized the transaction of sale of lands at Village: Sakri as a sale of stock-in-trade as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of the reassessment is for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee, therefore, the assessee cannot be permitted to convert the same as his appeal or revision in disguise. 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we find that the assessee in the case before us had in the garb of the reassessment proceedings initiated in his case u/s. 147 of the Act tried to seek relief on issues which had already attained finality. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC), the jurisdiction of the A.O in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment; or permitting the assessee to re-agitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. Also, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act is for the benefit of the revenue and an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
