TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.09.2013 declaring income of Rs. NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2015 at total assessed income of Rs. 5,04,900/- by making addition of Rs. 4,01,338/- under head Long Term Capital Gain and Rs. 1.03,562/- under other sources respectively. The claim of capital gain was allowed as under: Sale price of land: Rs. 40000000/- Less: Indexed cost of purchase Rs. 16177171/- Less: Indexed cost of improvement (Improvement expenses disallowed Rs. 1701685/-) Rs. 24724279/- Expenses on Transfer Rs. 399999/- Net Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of Act in order to verify the fact that the perusal of sale deed showed that the stamp value of land was Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C of the Act and observed that since the land sold was not the stock in trade of the assessee, as it had claimed the benefit of indexation on land sold, the computation of capital should have been made considering the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act which was not done in this case. Further the ld. AO observed that the authentici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no other option but to invoke the Provisions of Section 50C of the Act in the case of Sale of said Land/ immovable property of Stamp Value of Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Hence, in the absence of any cogent response or documentary evidences from the assessee, it establishes that the assessee suppressed the capital gain by Rs. 4,81,68,000/- (the difference amount of Rs. 8,81,68,000/- and Rs. 4,00,00,000/-), while offering the same in its original ITR. Hence, the difference amount of Rs. 4,81,68,000/- will be treated as Capital Gain earned by the assessee during the A.Y. and the same is to be brought to the tax, accordingly. Further, Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated separately for the inaccurate particulars of income submitted by the assessee. [Addition (Long Term Capital Gain): Rs. 4,81,68,000/-]" 5. The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition for which assessee is in appeal and fundamental issue raised about the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction on basis of stale information. We find that the AO mentions in the assessment order that the assessee had questioned the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and a similar ground was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to what constitutes change of opinion. If a subject-matter, entry or claim/deduction is not examined by an Assessing Officer, it cannot be presumed that he must have examined the claim/deduction or the entry, and, therefore, it is a case of "change of opinion". When at the first instance, in the original assessment proceedings, no opinion is formed, the principle of "change of opinion" cannot and does not apply. There is a difference between change of opinion and failure or omission of the Assessing Officer to form an opinion on a subject- matter, entry, claim, deduction. When the Assessing Officer fails to examine a subject matter, entry, claim or deduction, he forms no opinion. It is a case of no opinion. Whether or not the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and examined the subject-matter, claim, etc., depends upon factual matrix of each case. 5.8 Section 50C of the Act spells out very clearly the position of the statute with regard to valuation of capital asset in certain cases. The appellant's case fell under this category and the onus lay on it to follow the law. This was not a matter of opinion but of statute that had to be followed. The appellant has brough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 50C of the Act are not applicable in its case. As per Section 50C of the Act the value taken by the stamp duty valuation authority is the value to be adopted in case the sale value shown in the transaction is lower. Section 50C(1) of the Act is a deeming provision wherein the registration value fixed by the State Government under the Stamp Act is deemed to be full value of consideration. It reads as under: "50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer." 5.12 Section 50C(2) of the Act permits the assessee to contend before the AO that the registration value fixed by the stamp valuation authority under the Stamp Act is excessive a....