TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer formed a belief of income escaping assessment based on fresh analysis of existing records which constitutes 'tangible material' and in view of the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts as required under the proviso and Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Act? [B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, without appreciating that the reopening was initiated within the permissible time limit, duly approved by the competent authority, and supported by embedded material facts not consciously considered during the original assessment, thereby attracting the ratio laid down in the cases of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [(1993) 203 ITR 456(SC) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [(2007)291 ITR 500 (SC)]? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in law by relying on judicial precedents such as CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s available on record before the Assessing Officer, and there was no new evidence or information which was available for reopening the case. 3.9 The Tribunal, therefore, relying upon the proviso to section 147 of the Act, held that the case could not have been reopened beyond a period of four years due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts. 3.10 It was also found by the Tribunal that the assessee, during the original assessment proceedings, had furnished all the details regarding the sale of land and the same fact was also mentioned in the Trading and Profit & Loss Account of the audited Books of Accounts. 3.11 The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 3.12 The Tribunal, thereafter, quashed and set aside the assessment order and in view of the setting aside of the assessment proceedings, did not further consider the merits of the case. 4. In view of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, it would be germane to refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's share each Rs. 6,23,64,275/- being 50% of Rs. 1,24,72,950/-. The assessee has credited to profit and account by sale consideration of Rs. 6236475/-. (ii) From the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012-13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,73,25,167/-(including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1 for 15,54,000) under the head investment. However, the balance sheet of the previous year's i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, the investment in agricultural land were valued at Rs. 3,19,76,667/. The variations observed in the valuation of agricultural lands (other than land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1 for Rs. 15,54,000/-). No information was found regarding sale of above said agricultural land. (iii) On perusal of the profit and loss account and balance sheet it is noticed that the assessee had earned exempt income by way of dividend income of Rs. 19,88,178/-. However, it is noticed from the computation of income that the has not calculated and disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/received: As per para no. 2 5. Findings of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere valued at Rs. 3,19,76,667. The variations observed in the valuation of agricultural lands (other than land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1 for Rs. 15,54,000) are tabulated hereunder: Land Location Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 Amount in (Rs.) A.Y. 2012-13 Amount in (Rs.) Difference Amount in Rs. Ankodia R.S. No. 21 3045350 3045350 0 R.S. No. 22/2 1646820 1646820 0 Khanpur Block No. 40/2 5038353 849503 4188850 Block No. 44 12726409 3228144 9498265 Block No. 52 4913038 2394653 2518385 Samiyala Land Block No. 389 1069867 1069867 0 Block No.399 3536800 3536800 0 Total 31976637 15771137 16205500 Further, it is seen that these agricultural lands were not sold during the year under consideration. Therefore, the value of the agriculture land to the extent of Rs. 16205500/-has been understated during the year. (iii) On going through the particulars of assessee's income, it was observed that the assessee during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to the asst, tear 2012 has earned exempted income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....geable to: tax in the year in which stock in trade was sold. Conversationally, the short term capital gain per square feet works out to Rs.355.17 (Rs. 4390.07 lakh / 1236019 square feet [114829 square meters]). However, the assessee has already offered Rs. 210 per square feet out of the above short term capita) gain of Rs. 355.17 square feet as his business income and brought to tax. In view of the above, the actual implication works: out to Rs. 1794.33 lakh (difference: amount of Rs. 145.17 per square feet was required to be levied 12,36,019 square feet). The on proportionate under assessment of income in the hands of the assessee works out to Rs. 807.16 lakh (Rs. 1794.32 lakh/2) on potential basis. Taking into consideration the assessment year-wise summary of proportionate stock (@50%) sale of land and chargeability of short term capital in the hands of the assessee, the actual impact on account of short term capital gain of Rs. 43.11.186/- was chargeable to tax in the asst. year under consideration. On verification of the case records, it is seen that the assessee has offered an income of Rs.248/ under the head income from capital gain (the amount is not earned by way s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. The fair market value of the above non agriculture land on the date of conversion i.e. 03.02.2010 and 20.02.2010 relevant to asst. year 2010-11, was taken as at jantri rate for that land which stands at Rs.4,500 per square meter (the above referred land was converted to non agriculture land on 29,11.2008 i.e. A.Y. 2009-10). Accordingly, the fair market value of the above referred land works out to Rs. 5167.31 lakhs (114829 square meter X jantri rate of Rs.4,500 per square meter). As per section 45(2) of the act, the notional short term capital gain arising from transfer by way of conversion of capital asset into stock; in trade at fair market value of Rs. 5167.31 lakh after deducting cost of acquisition of Rs.7717.24 lakh works out to Rs. 4390.07 lakh (Rs. 5167.31 lakh less Rs. 777.24 lakh), chargeable to tax in the year in which stock in trade was sold. Conversationally, the short term capital gain per square feet works out to Rs.355.17 (Rs. 4390.07 lakh / 1236019 square feet (114829 square meters)). However, the assessee has already offered Rs.210 per square feet out of the above short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case: In this case, return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 23.01.2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraph 2 to 6). I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submission made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment /re-assessment proceedings and have noted that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed the material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under con....