TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Sri G.S. Naveen, learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee. 2. This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is preferred by the Revenue, calling in question the order dated 06.08.2024 passed in W.P. No. 8936 of 2022 (T-IT). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold an immovable property on 29.08.2016. The assessee purchased a residential site on 01.06.2017 and thereafter commenced construction of a residential house, which was completed on 26.08.2019. The assessee claimed the benefit of exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the I.T. Act"). The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 54F of the I.T. Act, and that such deposit alone could have been utilised for construction of the residential house. In the absence of compliance with the mandate under sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the I.T. Act, the assessee, to that extent, is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F of the I.T. Act. 4.1 The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that compliance with sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the I.T. Act, is mandatory. It is contended that the factual matrix involved in the case of Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, the learned Single Judge committed an error in allowing the deduction under Section 54....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 143 of the I.T. Act. The assessee was subjected to scrutiny to examine two issues, namely: (i) deduction/exemption from capital gains; and (ii) investment in immovable property. The assessee filed the requisite reply and furnished the necessary details. The Assessing Officer accepted the submissions made and concluded the assessment by accepting the return of income. At a later stage, a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued reopening the assessment. 8. The reasons recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act indicate that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the I.T. Act on the ground that the unutilised consideration was not deposited in the Capital G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h reassessment proceedings merely on his change of opinion on the basis of same facts and circumstances which has already been considered by him during the original assessment proceedings. Such could not be the intention of the legislature. The said provision was incorporated in the scheme of the IT Act so as to empower the Assessing Authorities to re-assess any income on the ground which was not brought on record during the original proceedings and escaped his knowledge; and the said fact would have material bearing on the outcome of the relevant assessment order. 9) Section 147 of the IT Act does not allow the reassessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has a change of opinion with regard to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. 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. 7. 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." ....