Lal Chand Meena Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Reopening Beyond Six Years Held Time-Barred – ITAT Jaipur Quashes 148 Notice & Assessment as Void
Assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring income of ₹3.44 lakh. Assessment was initially completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) in October 2016 after allowing exemption u/s 54F on sale of property. Later, the case was reopened again u/s 147 by issuing a fresh notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2021, alleging excess exemption claim of ₹34.25 lakh, since AO applied section 50C (stamp duty value) instead of actual sale consideration to compute capital gains.
CIT(A)-NFAC upheld the reopening & sustained the addition, holding that Assessee failed to truly disclose material facts & that section 50C value must be adopted for 54F computation, citing Mohd. Shoib v. DCIT (Lucknow ITAT).
Before Tribunal, Assessee challenged both the validity of reopening & the denial of exemption u/s 54F, arguing:
- The assessment had already been completed u/s 147/143(3) in 2016; hence a second reopening after four years was barred by limitation u/s 147 read with 149.
- AO ignored objections filed against the reopening, violating GKN Driveshafts (SC) principles.
- For section 54F, only actual sale consideration (not deemed value u/s 50C) should be considered, relying on Lalit Kumar Kalwar (ITAT Jaipur), Gyanchand Batra, Prakash Karnawat & Nand Lal Sharma.
Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 for AY 2013-14 was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant AY, violating section 149. Hence, the notice itself was invalid & the consequential reassessment was quashed as time-barred. Since the reopening was void, the grounds on the merits of section 54F became academic.
