TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions made by the Assessing Officer U/s 50C without considering the section 50C(2) without any cogent reasons." 2. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal are against challenging the reopening proceeding on the ground that Assessing Officer have no jurisdiction and notice issued U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on the basis of audit objection. The assessee is having income from house property, capital gain and other sources. He filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30/3/2007 declaring total income of Rs. 12,11,541/-. The case was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act on 03/4/2007 by the ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. The ld Assessing Officer noticed that there was an escapement of income, therefore, after recording the reasons, he issued notice U/s 148 on 04/2/2009. The copy of reasons recorded was given to the assessee. The assessee also challenged the reopening before the Assessing Officer and filed objection, which has been disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 04/12/2009. Thereafter, he scrutinized the case U/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer had reopened the assessee's case u/s 147 on account of not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was submitted alongwith the return and no new facts came in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, therefore, reopening was bad in law. The ld CIT(A) considered the various cases with reference to no new facts before the Assessing Officer particularly in the case of CIT Vs Manohar Lal Gupta (2007) 213 CTR 0193 (Raj HC), which was found completely distinguishable from the fact of the assessee. He further relied on the decision in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), therefore, the ld Assessing Officer was not rendered powerless to initiate assessment proceedings having accepted the return U/s 143(1) in A.Y. 2006-07. The 151(1) is also not applicable in the case of assessee as in this case notice U/s 148 was issued by the DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. Moreover, the case has not been assessed U/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, he dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has sold his property i.e. flat No. 06 and 08 situated at D-38/A, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur for a total consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- vide registered sale deed da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cit Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 29 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) on reasons to believe and tangible material for reopening the case U/s 147. In identical facts of the case of Tupperware India (P) Ltd (2016) 65 taxmann.com 17 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court has held that the case reopened on the basis of audit report available with the Assessing Officer and management service fees paid without deducting TDS has been disclosed in the return. The Hon'ble Court has held that there was no new material came across in the knowledge of Assessing Officer, which can be based on reasons to believe. The various cases also referred by the ld counsel on reopening on the basis of audit objection and borrowed satisfaction, erroneous and computation of benefit U/s 80HHC and requested to quash the reopening proceedings U/s 147 of the Act. 4. At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and argued that in this case, the only case was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act or the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) is squarely applicable. The ld Assessing Officer has not framed any opinion in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. It is also on the part of the assessee to disclose the true facts in the return. The assessee has calculated capital gain by taking the sale consideration of Rs. 60 lacs in computation of income. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue. 6. The 3rd ground of the assessee's appeal is against upholding the addition by the ld CIT(A) without considering Section 50C(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The ld Assessing Officer had adopted, for computation of capital gain, the sale value on the basis of value adopted by the stamp authority at Rs. 76,66,480/-. The assessee was allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard during the course of hearing. Thereafter he calculated capital gain on the basis of value assessed by the stamp authority U/s 50C. Nowhere, the assessee has challenged the valuation before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer is not required suo moto to establish that the rate taken by the stamp duty authorities was more than the fair market value. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not filed any evidence about having raised th....