TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening of the concluded assessment u/s. 143(3) dt.2-12-10 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible in the eyes of law, is liable to be quashed." "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, initiation of reassessment u/s. 147/148 is invalid, since it is assessed u/s. 143(3) dt.2-12-10 and beyond 4 years and there is no allegation in the reasons recorded which indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary for the original assessment made u/s. 143(3) dt.2-12-10; initiation u/s. 147/148 is not permissible as per first proviso to sec.147; is liable to be quashed." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y.2008-09 on 30.09.2009, declaring an income of Rs. 3,72,070/- [including Long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 2,21,602/-]. Return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 3. Original assessment was, thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertains to allowing cost of improvement of the property. The appellant in her submissions stated that she has incurred cost of improvement of the property as legal heir of Late Shri Virendra Agarwal and that she has incurred Rs. 3,22,510/- over the years viz., for Murum with labour charges in 2001-02: Rs. 68,875/-, 2002-03: Rs. 87,259/-, 2003-04: Rs. 96,481/-, 2004-05: Rs. 45,2121- and in 2005-06 for construction of boundary wall & labour charges of Rs. 34,383/-, and claimed indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 4,01,816/-. She has submitted that as the property was in the name of her late husband the appellant had incurred the expenses as legal heir. This appears to be an afterthought as the AO brought on record that Late Shri Virendra Agarwal was passed away on 08.04.1999. The action of the AO in disallowing the cost of improvement is accordingly upheld and the ground no.3 is dismissed. 4.3. The ground no.4 is general and hence needs no adjudication." 6. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals), has carried the matter in appeal before me. 7. I have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 6,23,903/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the case is required to be reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Sd/- Raipur Income Tax Officer-1(3) Dated : 28.03.2013 Raipur As stated by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. AR, a conjoint perusal of the copy of the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration i.e., A.Y.2008-09, and the original assessment framed in her case vide order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 02.12.2010, Page 29 of APB, reveals that not only the assessee had duly disclosed the transaction of sale of the property under consideration, i.e., land at Damur Talab (Kh. No.245/13) in her return of income and offered the resultant LTCG for tax, but the same after deliberations by the A.O was accepted by him while framing the original assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 02.12.2010. Our view above is fortified by a reference to the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) dated 02.12.2010, which reads as under (relevant extract) : "2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from interest and misc. receipt and LTCG. During the course of assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention advanced by the Ld. AR that as the case of the assessee had been reopened based on a mere "change of opinion", therefore, the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 28.03.2014. 13. Apart from that, I also concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally framed vide order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 02.12.2010, therefore, in the absence of satisfaction of either of two conditions as contemplated in the "1st Proviso" to Sec. 147, which had allegedly resulted in the income of the assessee chargeable to tax having escaped assessment, viz. (i). there was failure of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148; or (ii). there was the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment; her case could not have been reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Admittedly, there had been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to notice under sub-sect....