TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the petitioner had declared the total taxable income at Rs. 14,49,670/- and an agricultural income at Rs. 12,45,000/-. The petitioner had acquired an immovable property (vacant site) jointly along with her son, wherein the stated value of the property was declared as Rs. 51,00,000/-. The Registering Authority however objected to the same and appeared to have demanded stamp duty on the same property at the guideline value of Rs. 1,74,24,000/-. 3. Under these circumstances, the assessment that was completed earlier under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018 pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.10.2017. It appears that the petitioner had also filed further appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in ITA.No.208/2018-19/CIT(A)-1/TRY. There, a partial relief was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2020. Meanwhile, the petitioner had attempted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme under the Finance Act, 2021. 4. During the interregnum, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner for the second time for the following reasons as in reasons furnished to the petitioner for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to be considered. 2 02.02.2022 The assessee is a doctor by profession deriving income from pension, house property filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2014-15 on 30.9.2014 admitting total income of Rs 14.49.670 and agricultural income of Rs 12,45,000/-. The assessee had acquired a vacant site jointly with her son by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2014 (DOC No. 89/2014) for a sale consideration of Rs. 51 lakhs, but the stamp value of the property stood at Rs. 1,74.24,000/- However, the assessee has admitted only Rs. 51 lakhs. Accordingly the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) rw 147 making addition of Rs. 82,16,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) whereas the SRO considered the guideline value of the property at Rs. 3,26,70,000/- and levied additional stamp duty of Rs. 10,67 220/- Aggrieved against it, the assessee approached the Spl Dy Thasilhar (Stamps), after the filed inspection by the Spl.Dy. Thasilar, assessed the site value ar Rs. 550/- per sq.ft and stating that it has been recorded as house site in the SRO guideline value register On further appeal, the Registrar General of Registration, Chennai fixed the site value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ACIT Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd., reported in (2023) 148 taxmann.com 432 (Madras), wherein, this Court has held as under:- "8. ......... a) That the impugned proceeding is admittedly initiated invoking the extended period under Section 147 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said Section is extracted below: Provided that where an assessment under sub-section(3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year.-- A reading of the above provision would show that while it is open to the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 147 of the Act within a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exercised only in circumstances which the statute permit. The above limitation/restriction on the power of reassessment was intended to ensure transparency in the proceeding and to avoid abuse of power. It is trite law that power of reassessment must be exercised with a degree of caution and an element of circumspection and must be strictly in compliance with the procedure and only in circumstances which warrants exercise of that power. In the present case, though admittedly the power to reassess has been exercised by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, there is no recording of the existence of the circumstances, viz., failure to disclose fully and truly all material particulars which would confer jurisdiction to proceed / initiate reassessment proceeding beyond four years and within six years. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments to appreciate the relevance and importance of existence of jurisdictional facts and an application of mind as to its existence by the authority concerned before assuming jurisdiction. It is relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llenged by the owner contending that the land was a part of park. The Minister directed public inquiry and on the basis of the report submitted, confirmed the order. 81. Interfering with the finding of the Minister and setting aside the order, the Court of Appeal stated; "The first and the most important matter to bear in mind is that the jurisdiction to make the order is dependent on a finding of fact; for, unless the land can be held not to be part of a park or not to be required for amenity or convenience, there is no jurisdiction in the borough council to make, or in the Minister to confirm, the order." (emphasis supplied) 11. While on the question of existence or otherwise of jurisdictional fact which would enable the authority to invoke the extended period of limitation of six years for reassessment, it may also be relevant to note that the question of limitation has been understood to be one involving jurisdiction even under the Excise Law and in the absence of finding of the existence of the circumstances enabling the invoking of the extended period, it has been held by the Hon-ble Supreme Court that the issuance of Show Cause Notice itself is imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute the "jurisdictional fact" for invoking extended period of limitation and failure to record the existence of the above jurisditional fact while invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, would vitiate the entire proceedings. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the following judgments, wherein it was held that failure to render a finding as to the existence of the above circumstance warranting invocation of the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgements: a) Duli Chand Singhania vs ACIT (269 ITR 192): ...that the reasons recorded for issue of notice showed that the satisfaction recorded therein wes merely about the escapement of income. There was not even a whisper of an allegation that such escapement had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment. Absence of this finding which is a "sine qua non" for assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad) it was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyound the period of your years" 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there was no suppression of facts by the petitioner, as the sale deed was produced for inspection in the first round prior to the order dated 28.12.2018 pursuant to the notice issued on 12.10.2017 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. It is submitted that in the absence of any tangible evidence to substantiate that the petitioner had failed to produce necessary information required for completing the assessment, invocation of larger period of limitation for the purpose of re-opening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to 01.04.2021 cannot be countenanced. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 10. On the ....