TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed deduction of Rs. 01,33,02,123/- under Section 54F of the Act. Details of such investment are reflected in the return of income for the year under consideration, in which total income at Rs. 88,84,560/- was declared. 2.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for "limited scrutiny", for which notice dated 18th September, 2017 under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued. In the said notice, following issues were identified for limited scrutiny. * Value of consideration for computation of capital gains; * Capital gains/loss on sale of property; * Deduction from capital gains. 2.3 The respondent authority vide notice dated 24th August, 2018 under Section 142 (1) of the Act called upon the petitioner to furnish various details including justification of sale consideration of Rs. 02,83,54,388/- and purchase deed of residential property of Rs. 01,33,02,123/- so as to establish genuineness of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. 2.4 Apropos to the aforesaid notice, petitioner vide letter dated 17th September, 2018 furnished details and information as under. * Proof of deduction under Section 54F of the Act; * Bank statement showing payment for above deduction; * St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid contention, learned senior advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and the issue on hand was examined by the then Assessing Officer in threadbare. He submitted that at the time of scrutiny, all the necessary evidences and details were already submitted and thereby it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has come in possession of any new information or any tangible material, based on which reassessment can be justified. Learned senior advocate, therefore, submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act cannot be assumed by the Assessing Officer merely because he formed a different opinion than in the same facts and circumstances in which the then Assessing Officer had formed. 5.2 Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act only on the basis of audit objection. Learned senior advocate submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have formed his own independent opinion based on new tangible material and information and thereby the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act is impermissible in eye of law. 5.3 To substantia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come for AY 2016-17 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs.88,84,560/-, Scrutiny assessment has been completed U/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 15.12.2018, accepting returned income. 2. Brief Details of Information collected/received by the AO: As per information available, it is revealed that the assessee had sold immovable property alongwith other co- owners for a consideration of Rs. 12,35,90,464/- situated at Plot No. 4, Final Plot No. 134, TPS 14, Gam-Pal, Dist. Surat, and his share was Rs. 2,83,54,388/- and the assessee has claimed deduction U/s. 54F to the tune of Rs. 1,33,02,123/-. However, it is noticed that the assessee has furnished only a "Sale Agreement without Possession and not furnished the supporting evidence to show that he has actually purchased a new residential property within the prescribed time as per the provisions of Section 54F of the IT. Act, 1961. In view of the above, the assessee is not entitled for deduction U/s. 54F of the Act and Rs. 1,33,02,123/- claimed as deduction U/s. 54F in this regard is required to be added in the hands of the assessee. 3. Analysis of information collected / received: The assessee had filed its return of income for AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....narrated above and material available on records and after analyzing the same, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,33,02,123/- has escaped assessment for AY. 2016-17 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 to the facts of the case. As noted above in the reasons for reopening were embedded in such a manner that material evidence could not be discovered by the AO and could have been discovered with due diligence, accordingly attracting provisions of Explanation 1 of section 147 of the Act. It is evident from the above discussion that in this case, the issues under consideration were never examined by the AO during the course of regular assessment and the assessee never brought into the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. Hence for aforesaid reasons, it is not a case of change of opinion by the AO. In this case, more than four years have not lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice uls. 148 is sought for from Jt. CIT-Range 1(1), Surat, as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act." 9.1 Considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re- opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the wo....