TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47 of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that the Proviso to Sec.147 applies to the case of assessee and hence the notice for reopening issued for the asst. year 2013-14 on 08.04.2021 is barred by limitation and hence the notice and all consequent proceedings are untenable in law. 4. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the condition precedent for the reopening of assessment under sec.147 beyond the 4 year period as per the Proviso to the section, is that escapement of income should arise out of the failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and in the absence of the same, the notice under Sec.148 for reopening the assessment is without jurisdiction. 5. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that TOLA and the SC decision in Ashish Agarwal case would not extend the time limit for issue of notice u/s.148, for which in the case of assessee, notice could not have been issued beyond 31.3.2018 as per Proviso to the unamended sec.147 of the Act in the absence of any fresh tangible material to reopen the assessment. 6. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the notice for reopening was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order dated 12.02.2016 by the DCIT, Non-Corp. Circle-3, Madurai determined the LTCG at Rs. 1,54,65,540/-. The AO held the actual commission paid was Rs. 6,66,000 and recomputed the LTCG. 4. Assessment u/s.147 : The assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 dated 08.4.2021. The reason for reopening was that the value of the property as per sec.50C is Rs. 39,50,97,000/- and is to be taken as the total sale consideration. In the notice under section 148A(b) dated 30/5/2022, the income escaping assessment was stated as Rs. 43,66,729/-. On 13/6/2022, the assessee filed reply objecting to the notice. The AO passed the order u/s.148A(d) dated 29/7/2022, in which the total escaped income was increased to Rs. 82,69,145/- and a notice u/s.148 on the same date was issued. The assessee filed the ROI in response to notice u/s.148 and furnished all the details called for. The Notice u/s.142(1) was issued on 13/01/2023 calling for various details with regard to the asset transferred along with sale deed copy, deductions claimed along with supporting documents, calculation of capital gains, copy of bank statement, etc. In response, the assessee filed replies dated 20/01/2023 and 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) held that " .... It is seen that the same is on the basis of material available on record and could not be treated as a change of opinion since Assessing Authority had proceeded strictly in accordance with provisions of section 148 of the Act." 7. The ld.AR for the assessee argued on jurisdiction as per the Ground Nos.2 to 6 and stated that the Proviso to sec.147 applies to the case of assessee and the notice u/s.148 for reopening dated 08.04.2023 was barred by limitation. There is no failure on assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts for assessment. That TOLA would not extend the time limit where the 4 year period for reopening expires much earlier to the date on which TOLA came into force. In the assessment order, the AO in Page 2 of the order states that the value of property as per sec.50C is Rs. 39,50,97,000/- which is to be taken as total sale consideration. This was the sole reason for issuing notice beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant asst. year. 8. The ld.AR stated that the AO has not stated anything about the failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts and there is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er registered document is Rs. 37.00 crores. It is submitted that for this reason also, the application of value as per sec.50C is uncalled for. 12. The ld.AR stated that the lower authorities had rejected the contentions of assessee stating that the amendment does not have retrospective operation and operates only from the specified date, 01.04.2021. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC also wrongly understood the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran, reported in 429 ITR 97. In Pages 16-17 of the order at Para 8.1., the ld.CIT(A) referring to Madras High Court observed that "wherein, it was held that "Proviso to section 50C(1) should be taken to be effective from the date when Proviso was introduced. By applying the ratio of the above decision, it is held that proviso to section 50C shall be effective from 01/04/2021 only and cannot be held to be effective retrospectively." The CIT(A) thus confirmed the addition made by the AO. 13. The ld.AR submitted that the Madras High Court in this judgement was dealing with the first proviso to sec.50C, which was introduced by Finance Act 2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and its applicability for the asst. ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities. The assessee HUF filed its return of income by declaring the long term capital gain as 1/6th share of the immovable property sold for the A.Y.2013-14 for an amount of Rs. 37.00 Crores. The LTCG was computed at Rs. 1,47,99,538/- after reducing the commission paid of Rs. 13.32 lacs and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 68,97,143/- and claiming deduction u/s.54F of Rs. 3,85,91,226/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act by order dated 12.02.2016 by the DCIT, Non-Corp. Circle-3, Madurai determined the LTCG at Rs. 1,54,65,540/- by reducing the deduction claimed on account of commission paid to Rs. 6,66,000/-. 17. Further, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 dated 08.04.2021. The reason for reopening was that the value of the property as per sec.50C is Rs. 39,50,97,000/- and is to be taken as the total sale consideration. The assessee raised an objection for reopening the assessment beyond 4 years, since the AO has not found any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. However, the AO rejecting the submissions of the assessee continued the proceedings and passed the order ....