Asstt CIT v P Janakiraman - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No 2079/Chny/2017
2022 TaxPub(DT) 5399 (Chen-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147, Proviso

In the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment there was not even a whisper that there was any omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, reopening of assessment merely based on change of opinion on the same set of fact was hit by proviso to section 147 and, therefore, set aside.

Reassessment - Beyond four years - No failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts -

AO reopened assessment on the reasoning that profit admitted by assessee on sale of agricultural lands to the tune of Rs. 4,83,65,624 was not an agricultural land and the profit on sale of land of Rs. 4.83 crores earned by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 was to be taxed. Assessee challenged validity of reopening taking plea of proviso to section 147. Held: During original assessment proceedings assessee had furnished detailed submissions towards realizing net profit on sale of lands. In para 10 of the assessment order, AO had elaborately discussed on the sale of impugned agricultural lands, scrutinized the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee and arrived at the findings that profit from sale of land being agricultural in nature were exempt from tax. In the reasons recorded for reopening there was not even a whisper that there was any omission or failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, reopening of assessment merely based on change of opinion on the same set of fact was hit by proviso to section 147 and, therefore, set aside.

Followed:CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC). Relied:CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2008-09

IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

V. DURGA RAO, J.M. & G. MANJUNATHA, A.M.

Asstt. CIT v. P. Janakiraman

ITA No. 2079/Chny/2017

29 July, 2022

Appellant by : Sajit Kumar, Jt. CIT

Respondent by : S. Sridhar, Advocate

ORDER

V. Durga Rao, J.M.

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 7, Chennai, dt. 23-6-2017 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 quashing the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act in short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30-9-2009. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed. Subsequently, the assessing officer has reopened the assessment and concluded the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dt. 30-3-2013 by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,40,79,997. Thereafter, again the assessing officer has reopened the assessment and re-concluded the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dt. 30-3-2016 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,24,45,621.