Assessment reopening notice quashed for agricultural land sale - AO failed verification under Section 148A(b)

The Bombay HC quashed a notice issued under Section 148A(b) for reopening assessment regarding LTCG on agricultural land sale. The petitioner claimed the land was beyond 8 km from municipality with village population below 10,000, thus not a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14)(iii). The court held the AO failed to independently verify information or record satisfaction before reopening, merely acting on difference between purchase price and stamp duty value. The AO incorrectly stated assessment was completed under Section 143(1) when it was actually under Section 143(3), indicating change of opinion rather than escaped income. The reopening lacked statutory jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

(a) Whether the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner qualifies as a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"), given its location beyond 8 km from the local limits of the nearest municipality and its population size.

(b) Whether the issuance of notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer ("AO") and subsequent show cause notices and orders proposing variation in income for the assessment year 2020-21 were valid and within jurisdiction.

(c) Whether the AO had a "reason to believe" and independently applied his mind, based on tangible material, to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act, or whether the reopening was based on mere "borrowed satisfaction" from information on the insight portal.

(d) Whether the jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") was competent to issue notices under Section 148A of the IT Act, in light of settled law.

(e) Whether the petitioner's objections and contentions regarding the non-applicability of capital gains tax on agricultural land and the procedural irregularities in issuance of notices deserved acceptance.

(f) The applicability and correctness of reliance on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents addressing the above issues.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

a) Status of Agricultural Land as Capital Asset under Section 2(14) of the IT Act

The Court examined the definition of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the IT Act, which excludes agricultural land situated beyond specified distances from municipalities or cantonment boards with certain population thresholds. The land in question was located in village Khumari, which had a population of 1,518 as per the 2011 census, and was situated beyond 8 km aerial distance from the nearest municipality.

The petitioner submitted a certificate from the Gram Panchayat confirming the population and location facts. The Court held that such agricultural land does not fall within the ambit of 'capital asset' for income tax purposes, thereby excluding it from capital gains tax liability. This interpretation was consistent with prior judgments of the Bombay High Court and other authorities cited by the petitioner, including Arvind Sahdeo Gupta and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chandan Magraj Parmar.

The respondents did not dispute these factual parameters but contended that the petitioner failed to establish the non-applicability of the capital asset definition with documentary evidence. The Court, however, accepted the petitioner's evidence and noted that the respondents failed to controvert the certificate or facts.

b) Validity and Jurisdiction to Issue Notices under Sections 148A and 148 of the IT Act

The petitioner challenged the issuance of notices dated 22-03-2024 (under Section 148A(b)), 30-03-2024 (under Section 148), and subsequent show cause notices and orders, on grounds that the JAO lacked jurisdiction and that the notices were issued in a faceless manner contrary to settled law.

The respondents argued that the notices were validly issued based on information received regarding the discrepancy between the purchase price and stamp duty value, amounting to escaped income of Rs. 6,63,000/-. They relied on Explanation (i) to Section 148 and various High Court and Supreme Court precedents to assert that the JAO had jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148A and to reopen assessments where income had escaped assessment.

The Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and the precedents, including the recent decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue Section 148A notices in a faceless manner. The Court found that the order of prior approval by the Principal Commissioner was not supplied to the petitioner, indicating procedural irregularity.

Further, the Court observed that the reopening of the assessment was based solely on information uploaded on the insight portal, without any independent verification or application of mind by the AO. This amounted to issuance of reopening notices on "borrowed satisfaction," which is impermissible under settled law as explained in Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd.

The Court emphasized that the AO must independently form a "reason to believe" supported by tangible material before reopening assessments under Section 148. Mere reliance on information from third-party sources without verification does not satisfy this requirement.

c) Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted returns and replies to notices under Section 142(1) and had raised objections to the show cause notice on the ground that the land was not a capital asset and that the notices were issued without jurisdiction.

The respondents argued that the petitioner's wife's assessment was reopened on similar grounds but was discharged, and that the petitioner's case was distinct as he had paid the consideration amount and was thus liable.

The Court rejected the respondents' contention that the petitioner failed to establish the non-applicability of capital asset status, accepting the documentary evidence regarding the land's location and population.

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that the AO did not independently verify or apply his mind to the information before reopening the assessment, rendering the notices and consequential orders invalid.

The Court also distinguished the present facts from those in Anshul Jain and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., where the reopening was held valid, noting that in the present case, the reopening was a mere change of opinion without fresh material.

d) Conclusions on Jurisdiction and Validity of Proceedings

The Court concluded that the notices under Sections 148A(b), 148, and the show cause notices and orders arising therefrom were issued without statutory jurisdiction and in violation of procedural safeguards. The reopening was based on incorrect facts and a change of opinion rather than a bona fide reason to believe.

Consequently, all impugned notices and orders were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"A bare perusal of the definition of 'capital asset' means the property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. However, it does not include agricultural land in India, situated beyond 8 km from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette and which has a population not exceeding ten thousand."

"Except for stating that such information was available on the insight portal, no material has been brought on record to show the existence of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income of Rs. 6,63,000/- had escaped assessment in respect of the petitioner. The reasons disclosed by the assessing office do not indicate that any exercise of independent verification thereafter was undertaken, resulting in consideration of the same with due application of mind by the Assessing Officer so as to reopen the completed assessment."

"Issuing the reopening notice on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible."

"The reopening was thus merely an outcome of a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer."

"The notice dated 22-03-2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act and consequential order dated 30-03-2024 by respondent No. 2; notice dated 30-03-2024 under Section 148 of the IT Act issued by respondent No. 2, show cause notice dated 08-11-2024 issued by respondent No. 4, and consequential order dated 27-11-2024 passed by respondent No. 3, and notice dated 28-11-2024 issued by respondent No. 3 would not survive and are liable to be quashed and set aside."

"No statutory remedy is available to challenge the notice U/s 148 of the Act, so it can be challenged in writ jurisdiction. Also, if the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, extraordinary jurisdiction could be exercised."

---