TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 2. The AO ought not to have issued notice u/s 148, based on change in opinion when in fact all the facts of the case were circumstances at the time of the original assessment. 3. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 was a valid notice. 4. The AO ought not to have denied exemption u/s 54F as claimed by the assessee. 5. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have upheld the order of the AO denying exemption u/s 54F. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: "1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The CIT(A) erred in treating the amount of Rs. 10,92,690/- to Urban Land Ceiling authorities as part of expenses incurred for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naging Director of M/s Penna Cement Industries Ltd., filed his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 admitting income of Rs. 1,13,82,340/-. An order under section 143(3) was passed in this case on 24.12.2009 accepting the income returned. Later, observing that income chargeable to tax has escaped income, the Assessing Officer reopened the case recording the reasons. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 7. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that all the information required for assessment proceedings was submitted before the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings and he substantiated the claims made in the return with sufficient evidences and accordingl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted that the total amount was spent for construction of new house property. Except this, no specific information with regard to the total consideration received, in whose hands the balance of long term capital gains were offered, the details of new house being constructed with the amounts received out of sale of old asset, etc., are not available. These are the issues that the Assessing Officer had raised in the reasons for reopening of the case, where there is no clarity on the issues. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that no infirmity in the reopening of the case under section 147 of the Act and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 50 lakhs on sale of land at Gachibowli after claiming land cost and addition though lands were sold for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as detailed below: S. No. Date of Registration and Consideration extent of area sold received 1 28.09.2006 Ac 0-20.8 gts. 52,00,000 2 28.09.2006, Ac 0-21.6 gts 54,00,000 3 28.09.2006, Ac 0-21.6 gts 54,00,000 4 28.09.2006, Ac 0-08 gts 20,00,000 5 28.09.2006 20,00,000 Total 2,00,00,000 The vendors to the above land were i) P. Pratap Reddy, ii) P. Venkata Lakshmi, iii) P. Deepthi Reddy (D/o P. Pratap Reddy), iv) Divya Priyanka (D/o P. Pratap Reddy). Vendors iii) & iv) are represented by their GPA holder P. Venkata Lakshmi. W/o P. Pratap Reddy. The assessee Sri Prat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that there is no tangible fresh material on the basis of which assessment is sought to be reopened as the full disclosure was made by the assessee. The fact is that the assessee has sold the property along with 3 other co-owners for a consideration of Rs. 2 crores. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment u/s 143(3) vide his order dated 24/12/2009 accepted the assessee's contention and completed the assessment and there being no tangible fresh material assessment cannot be reopened. 11.1 We come across the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha International, 348 ITR 485 wherein it was held as f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. Now, undoubtedly an order of the assessment which has been passed in subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of the assessment. Otherwise, a mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment for a subsequent assessment year would not by itself legitimise reopening of assessment for an earlier year. The point, we make it clear herein is that whether in the course of assessment proceedings for subsequent ye....