AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to law and facts of the case. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that re-opening of assessment u/s.147 is bad in law since no new information came into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the assessment for this year was completed u/s.143(3) and during the said proceedings copy of sale deed for land registered on 23-7-2008 was submitted wherein details of market value of land was mentioned in an Annexure to the sale deed. Hence reopening of assessment on the ground that information regarding market value of land was gathered after the original assessment was completed is not borne out by record and for far from truth. Hence re-opening of assessment based on the information already available on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IA amounting to Rs. 374,22,35,801/- and declared the book profit, u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 550,85,90,513/-. Later on the assessee company filed revised return of income revising the total income to Rs. 92,53,77,848/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143 r.w.s. 92CA(3) and section 144C of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 94,10,66,297/-. In the reassessment proceedings, the AO made the addition of Rs. 2,71,89,574/- relating to long term capital gains invoking the provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act. Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT (A) and the Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence the assessee filed this appeal before the ITAT. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Page No.28, the market value of the property was made available to the AO in Annexure-1(A) and as per the sale deed the actual sale consideration received was stated to be Rs. 8.00 lakhs, against the market value of Rs. 2,71,97,000/-. Thus, argued that since, the entire information was placed before the AO and four years have been lapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y and no fresh information was received by the AO, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and accordingly requested to quash the notice issued u/s 148 of the act. The learned AR further submitted that though the assessee has not specifically raised the ground with regard to validity of issue of notice u/s 148, in ground No.1 the assessee challenged the validity of asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment by its letter dt. 18-07-2016. As per proviso to sec.147, where an assessment was already completed u/ s 143(3) such assessment cannot be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in which the assessment was completed. Therefore, in our case, since our assessment was completed u/ s 143(3). the same cannot be reopened after four years of the relevant assessment year i.e., the assessment cannot be reopened beyond 31- 03-2014 unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on our part in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of assessment for that assessment year. We submit that since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... beyond four years from end of such assessment year and request your goodselves to close the reassessment proceedings initiated u/ s 148 and oblige for which act of kindness we shall be thankful to you. 4.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. It is observed that the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings, as per the 50C data collected by the department, communicated the detailed reasons for reopening of the assessment. As per 50C data, the market value of the property sold was much higher than the sale consideration admitted by the appellant company. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is correct in reopening of the assessment and hence, the ground raised by the a....