TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. In the assessee's appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in as much as it is against the Appellant is erroneous, against the provisions of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and the reassessment is not barred by limitation. 2.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decisions relied on by him are misquoted and are not applicable to the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t fails in toto. 2.8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have therefore appreciated that there are no fresh materials available with the Assessing Officer to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147 and reopening merely on a change of opinion is against the mandate of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore ought to have held that the reopening is merely on the basis of change of opinion and invalid in law. 3. Merits: 3.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s.234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same is erroneous and misconceived. 3.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....house property and Capital Gains as source of income. It was a submission that the assessee had inherited land from the assessee's mother which had been sold during the relevant Assessment Year. The return filed by the assessee came to be processed and the assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 23.12.2011 accepting the returned income. It was a submission that in the course of the assessment, the AO had verified the sale of the part of the inherited land. It was a submission that the assessee had received cash of Rs. 1,97,10,000/- which was deposited in the Savings Bank A/c. It was a submission that the cash deposited of Rs. 1,97,10,000/- represented the sale proceeds and the rental advance. It was a submission that the assessee had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y 2009-10". Accordingly, you have failed to admit the income earned under capital gain on the sale of lands for the A.Y 2009-10 to the extent of Rs. 1,23,49,800/-. The value of sale consideration as attributable to needs to be examined and assessed as per the capital gain provision of IT Act." 5. It was a submission that the re-opening was bad in law in so far as all the details had been verified by the AO in the course of the original assessment and re-opening was only on the basis of a change of opinion. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the reply filed by the assessee in respect of the re-opening, which is extracted as follows: I am in receipt of your letter in C.No.Scrutiny AY 2009-10/2016-17 dated 28-11-2016 in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r itself (supra), I am unable to understand as to how I can be said to have failed to disclose and admit the income in respect of these sales in the return of income for the ay. 2009-2010 under consideration. It is clear from the above details and the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that these have been made available to the Assessing Officer at the time of making original assessment u/s.143(3) of the 'Act', evidenced by the impugned assessment order dated 23-12-2011. Consequently, there being no failure on my part, the assessment could not be reopened after the expiry of permitted four years from the end of impugned assessment year 2009-10 after 31-03-2014. In the circumstances, I submit that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the re-opening was valid. It was a further submission that the Explanation-1 to Sec.147 directly applied. It was a submission that the re-opening was valid. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. 9. A perusal of the letter of the assessee filed during the course of the original assessment dated 23.12.2011 shows that the assessee has claimed the land is purely agricultural in nature. However, the proceedings of the Commissioner, Kundrathur, dated 27.03.2007 shows otherwise. In fact, this is an order issued by the Commissioner, to the assessee himself. The assessee has also paid the development charges in respect of the said development. This being so, we are of the view that this is a fresh evidence available to the AO which cl....