TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (3) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a statement along with the original return. In that statement, particulars of the land sold, sale consideration realised "cost of land as on1st Jan., 1954" and other particulars for the computation of the capital gains was also worked out and quantified. It would be useful to extract here what exactly the assessee disclosed in the original return: "Statement showing gain on the sale of Agrl. land into plots in the case of Shri Abhilash Chand Sharma R/o Patharwalan Meerut, A/C period1st April, 1973to31st March, 1974. Total Area sold . Share of 4013 Sq. yard Abhilash Chand . . . 2006.5 sq. yd. . Saleconsideration for the area . . 60,344,00 Less : Cost of land . . . (i) Area under Plots sold 2006.5 sq. yards . . (ii) Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year as well as for the asst. yr. 1973-74. The IAC (B-Rang, Merrut) passed an order under s. 144-A in the matter on14th Sept., 1979. This made the following points: (i) The assessee had duly worked out the extent of capital gains and also filed a statement along with the return. But the assessee claimed the capital gains as exempt from tax. Such capital gains were not shown in the return of income and no mention of the same was made in Part III of the return. There was thus omission or failure on the part of the assessee. (ii) The ITO completed the assessment under s. 143(1) accepting the assessee's version. The assessee's version is wrong because the surplus on the sale of land was at least taxable to capital gains tax. (iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had claimed the cost of land @ Rs. 6 per sq. yard development charges in the original papers filed on the basis of certificate of approved Govt. valuer the cost of land as on1st Jan., 1964is taken as shown in the original papers." The assessee appealed. 4. The AAC concluded that there was no case for action under s. 147(a). He noted that the assessee had given a complete working of capital gains, in the statement filed with the original return and had also claimed exemption therefore. No doubt, he did not mention these facts in Part III of the return. But that did not mean that the ITO could take action under s. 147(a). In fact, the ITO took such action only on the basis of the information already brought on record in the original procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements filed at any time before the completion of the assessment. There is no dispute that all the relevant and material facts were placed before the ITO before the original assessment was completed. The assessee was not obliged in law to furnish the inferences also, legal or factual, to the ITO, hence action under s. 147(a) was rightly held to be totally out of question. 6. Even as regards s. 147(b), Shri Tyagi submits that the Revenue has no case. This is because what has happened here is only a change of opinion. On the same facts that were available at the original stage. The ITO reached a different conclusion. This was not permissible. Shri Tyagi refers to the pages 3 & 5 of the paper book. These contain the notice issued by the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, on the material on record, all necessary conditions prescribed under s. 147(b) are satisfied. The ITO has apparently proceeded under s. 147(a). This does not mean the reassessment has to be struck down as bad in law, if one the material on record the notice issued under s. 148 for this year could be shown to have been issued validly in terms of s. 147(b). The notice in question was issued and served on the assessee on4th March, 1979for this assessment year. The notice was, therefore, within the limitation period for action under s. 147(b). The next question is, whether the ITO received information subsequent to the completion of assessment from which he could have formed a reasonable belief of income escaping assessment. In the light....