TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x is not justified in sustaining the re-opening of the assessment when all the facts relating to the transaction in respect of which addition was made in the re-assessment, are available with the Department when the original assessment was made. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,23,000/- under the head "Capital Gain". 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have appreciated that the difference between the value of the property transferred, as per the Sub Registrar and the value for which the property was transferred to his wife, is declared by the appellant as a gift to his wife. Therefore, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total income at Rs. 11,15,450. There was a search and seizure operation in M/s. P. Manoharlal Jewellers Group on 11.09.2007 and the assessee was also related to the group. Therefore, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 23.06.2008 in response to which the return of income was filed admitting income of Rs. 11,15,440. The return was accepted by the AO. Subsequently, during the course of scrutiny for the A.Y 2008-09, the AO observed that the assessee had entered into an agreement of salecum- GPA with Smt. Chaya Kankaria for the sale of property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 44,73,000 whereas the SRO value of the property was Rs. 1,06,96,000. The AO therefore, believed that as per section 50C, there was an escapement of income to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging both the validity of the re-assessment proceedings as well as the merits of the additions made by the AO. As regards validity of the re-assessment, the assessee submitted that the reopening of the assessment is being done after the expiry of 4 years and that the AO has not recorded any finding that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment of his income. The CIT (A) however, rejected the assessee's ground holding that no regular assessment has been made in the first place and even during the assessment u/s 153A, there was no seized material and therefore, the assessee's returned income was accepted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e accordingly confirmed the order of the AO. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. Ground of appeal No.2 is against the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The learned Counsel for the assessee has advanced the following arguments in support of his contention that the reopening of the assessment is not valid: (i) The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 153A and the notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant A.Y and therefore, the AO is required to record the reasons for reopening of the assessment along with the finding that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for computatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts necessary for the assessment of his income, for that assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant A.Y ended on 31.03.2009. The period of 4 years therefrom would come to an end on 31.3.2013. The notice u/s 148 has been issued on 3.5.2013. Therefore, it is clear that the notice u/s 148 is issued beyond the period of 4 years. The CIT (A) has given a finding that the assessment u/s 153A is not a regular assessment and that the proviso to section 147 could apply only where the regular assessment u/s 143(3) is made. We are unable to agree with this finding of the CIT (A). The assessment u/s 153A is made consequent to a search and the proviso to sub section-1 thereto provides that the AO shall assess or reassess the total income in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the registered document, the market value as per SRO is Rs. 1,06,96,000. In view of section 50C of the IT Act, there is an escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 62,23,000/-". 9. Thus, it is clear that the AO has not recorded any such finding. In the following decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, it has been held by the Hon'ble Courts that the recording of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for computation of assessee's income is a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act: a) Dulichand Sinhania vs. ACIT 299 ITR 192 (P&H) b) Haryana Acrylic Mft. Co. Vs. CIT & Anr. 308 ITR 38 (Del.) c) JSRS Udyog Ltd & Anr....