TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant / revenue has filed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in quashing the reassessment order made under Section 147 on the ground that it was merely case of change of opinion especially when the AO had not formed any opinion in the first instance on the issue relating to transferred capital assets? 2. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper in entertaining an alternate claim made u/s 54F, when the original claims should have been sustained by the Assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under Section 148, but however in the present case, assessee has changed the original cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scaped assessment. In the re-assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that lands were agricultural lands, however, the assessing officer did not accept the same and assessed the sale consideration under 'long term capital gains'. The assessing officer also did not give benefit of cost of acquisition, since the assessee failed to submit parent documents of the said property. Accordingly, the assessing officer assessed the entire sale consideration of Rs. 5.02/- Crores under 'long term capital loss'. 6. Further, the assessing officer observed that the property cannot be treated as a rural area property, as the property is situated within the limits of the Corporation of Chennai, for which purpose, the assessing officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of cost of acquisition of Uthandi Property. The CIT(A) upon perusal of the sale deed dated 05.06.1992, which discloses the sale consideration of Rs. 4 Lakhs, directed the assessing officer to recalculate the capital gains by granting due benefit of cost of acquisition as per Law. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, challenging the re-opening, and treating the land which was sold as capital asset and holding it to be liable for long term capital gains, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and held that reopening was a mere 'change of opinion'. It referred to co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of N.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on the basis of which, the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material was not a thing to be considered, at the stage of reopening. By placing reliance on this decision, the learned counsel submitted that in the original assessment, there is no finding rendered by the assessing officer with regard to the classification of the land and therefore, the reopening of the assessment is valid in law. 12. To examine as to whether, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the re-opening of the assessment, we need to examine the facts. The primary reason for re-opening the assessment was on the ground that the land fell within the limits of the Corporation of Chennai and the classification cannot be a agricultur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tee notification issued by the Government of Tamilnadu was very much available when the original assessment was completed and the assessing officer had no new tangible material to clarify its reopening. By relying upon the decision in the case of NKV Krishna, it was held that the land sold was an agricultural land. 14. Apart from that, a crucial aspect was taken note of the Tribunal, i.e., in the case of assessee's spouse, who was also co-owner of the very same property, the property was treated as agricultural land and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the said finding remain undisturbed. The above will clearly show that the re-opening of the assessment in the instant case was a clear case of 'chang....