2020 (2) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ''1. The order of the Commissioner of lncome - tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under sec.147oftheAct. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening was based only on change of opinion by the officer since the identical issue of long term capital gains computation was considered by the officer in the assessment u/s.143(3) dated 4.9.14, wherein the claim for exemption was considered and hence the reopening for the same reason is untenable in law. 4. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, since the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he provisions of the Act and hence on a due consideration of the same, ought to have allowed exemption u/s.54B and thus allowed the appeal''. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual. The assessee has not filed original return of income voluntarily u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). Subsequently, on receipt of information that assessee sold property for D1,64,48,000/-, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response to which assessee filed return of income disclosing income of D21,12,020/. Against the said return of income the assessment was completed vide order dated 04.09.2014 at total income of D41,47,210/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made an addition on accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ose of the assessment. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the validity of the reassessment vide impugned order as well as dismissed the appeal on merits. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended that there are no reasons to believe that income escaped assessment. In the absence of fresh tangible material, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the same set of facts which are available with him at the time of passing the original order. He further contended that there is no averments in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the purpose of making assessment. In support of this, he p....