IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Kamal Khata, JJ.
A & J Associates and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(1) and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2435 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Income Tax - Reassessment - Section 148 - AY 2015-16 - 143(3) - 147/151 - ITAT Order - Change of Opinion
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 proposing to reassess the income for AY 2015-16 and the order rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. The reasons for reopening the assessment relate to the sale and purchase of properties and the alleged escapement of income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons for reopening the assessment were based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) and that there was no new tangible material available to conclude that income had escaped assessment. The court also noted that the ITAT had rejected the same contentions and that the revenue was a party to the proceeding, yet the AO did not consider the ITAT order and issued the impugned notice and order. The court held that the respondents should have withdrawn the notice and the order at the inception of the hearing, and quashed and set aside the notice and order for AY 2015-16.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the reasons for reopening the assessment and the consideration of the ITAT order by the AO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the AO is not entitled to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion. It also emphasized that the respondents should have come with clean hands and been forthright with the courts.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the notice and the order issued by Respondent No.1 for AY 2015-16.
JUDGMENT :
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1. This Petition under Article 226 challenges notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) dated 19th March 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 proposing to reassess the income for the assessment year (‘AY’) 2015-16 and the order dated 16th March 2022, rejecting the objections raised by Petitioner to the proposed action of reopening.
2. The reasons for opening are as under:
2. Brief details of information received by the AO- On perusal of assessment records it was observed that assessee sold office premises i.e., 302, 3rd Floor, building no.19, A-Wing, Pinnacle corporate Pane, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 for a consideration of Rs.14,00,00,000/- on 02.05.2014. The assessee claimed to have purchased commercial premises i.e., 101, 1st Floor, Dev Plaza, Andheri (W), Mumbai-58 for a total consideration of Rs.23,29,19,898/- on 31.03.2015. It was contended that since neither the WDV of the block of assets “Building” become Nil/Negative and there were some assets in the said block, hence, there were no capital gain arising u/s 45 of the act.
However, it is noticed from the copy of agreement for sale dated 31.03.2015 for the purchase of office premises No. 101 at Dev Plaza that the agreement for sale was registered with the office of the Registrar only on 04.04.2015. Also, out of the total consideration of Rs. 22,05,00,000/- Only part payment was paid to the vendor of the property till the execution of the said agreement.
3. Analysis of information received- The assessee was only allowed permission to enter the said unit on specific request for carrying out. Fitments and refurbishing only. Hence, the said property was not in possession of the assessee as on 31.03.2015, which is also evident from para 2 and para 11 of the agreement. Since the assessee cannot claim that it has property as on 31.03.2015, the assessee cannot claim that it has completed part performance of the contract as stipulated under the provision of section 53A of the transfer of property act. It is also pertinent to mention here that, in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, Shri. Vijay Thakkar, the vendor of the impugned property, submitted that he had received Rs.20,50,00,000/- as an advance from the assessee and the property was sold in A.Y. 2016-17. Thus, the impugned transaction reached finality on 04.04.2015 and not as on 31.03.2015 as the same property could not be shown as an asset in the balance sheet of the vendor as well as the assessee as on 31.03.2015. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the assessee to show the new property purchased in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2015. Since the property was not in the possession of the assessee as on 31.03.2015, in the assessment order the amount of profit on sale of the property should be taxed as Short-Term Capital Gain.
4. Basic of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income- In view of the above specific information, I have reason to believe and am satisfied that amount of Rs. 4,65,87,479/- has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, assessment proceedings are required to be re-opened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to bring the income escaping assessment to tax for the above said assessment year.
5. Applicability of the provisions of section 147/151 of the Fact of the case- The case of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 needs to be re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to bring to tax the escaped income. More than four years but not more than 6 years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, the good self is requested to kindly accord necessary approval in this case to issue notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16.
6. Put up for kind perusal and app
The main legal point established is that the AO cannot reopen the assessment on a change of opinion when the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed.
The court emphasized the requirement for the AO to have a valid 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for asse....
The main legal point established is that there must be a rational connection or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that ther....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reopening of an assessment must be based on valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and not merely ....
The judgment established the importance of tangible material and the prohibition of a mere change of opinion in the exercise of power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking section 147 – 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must be satisfied, and there should be no failure to ....
The true test of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment is whether there exists fresh 'tangible material' on the basis of which appropriate conclusion is reached.
The court established that reopening assessments requires a clear and valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which was not present in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.