Appeal allowed: Reopening assessment invalid, correct costs allowed, legal expenses awarded.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the assessment reopening was invalid due to incorrect facts. It directed the correct indexed cost of acquisition and full legal expenses to be allowed, setting aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was partly allowed, and the assessment order was quashed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order under sections 143(3)/148.
2. Legality of the action under section 147.
3. Taxation of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 5,17,894.
4. Reduction of the indexed cost of acquisition.
5. Disallowance of legal expenses.
6. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
7. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order under Sections 143(3)/148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order dated 30/11/2016, arguing that the notice issued under section 148 was without jurisdiction and based on incorrect facts. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had issued the notice on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed her return of income, whereas she had indeed filed it on 08/05/2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,78,250, including a loss from Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,190. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was issued on the basis of incorrect facts and without proper application of mind, leading to the reopening of assessment being invalid.

2. Legality of the Action under Section 147:
The Tribunal examined whether the AO had "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The AO's belief was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed her return of income and had not disclosed the sale transaction. The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mumtaz Hazi Mohmad Memon v/s ITO, which held that reopening based on incorrect facts is invalid. The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and based on assumptions, leading to the conclusion that the reopening was invalid.

3. Taxation of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 5,17,894:
The AO had added Rs. 5,17,894 as LTCG, which was disputed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the property in question was a parental property acquired before 1981 and was under litigation, which was settled in 2006. The AO had incorrectly calculated the cost of acquisition and legal expenses, leading to an inflated LTCG. The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation was not justified and needed to be reconsidered.

4. Reduction of the Indexed Cost of Acquisition:
The AO had allowed a reduced indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 55,548 as against Rs. 4,71,245 claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation was based on an incorrect comparable case and did not consider the actual facts of the assessee's case. The Tribunal directed that the correct indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed.

5. Disallowance of Legal Expenses:
The AO had allowed legal expenses of Rs. 51,558 as against Rs. 1,54,674 claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided a justifiable basis for the reduced allowance and directed that the full amount of legal expenses claimed by the assessee should be allowed.

6. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee disputed the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue, as the primary grounds for the appeal were decided in favor of the assessee, rendering this issue moot.

7. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for condonation of a 178-day delay in filing the appeal, citing medical reasons and lack of communication with her counsel. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's liberal approach in such matters, found the reasons for the delay to be bona fide and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the reopening of the assessment was based on incorrect facts and invalid. The Tribunal directed that the correct indexed cost of acquisition and legal expenses should be allowed and set aside the additions made by the AO. The appeal was allowed partly, and the assessment order was quashed.

---