Case Law Details
CIT Vs R. Rajagopal Tondaiman (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is legally impermissible.
Facts- The return filed by the assessee was scrutinised u/s. 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act and completed on 31.01.2013 assessing an income of Rs.2,82,540/-. Subsequently, the revenue audit pointed out that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act is not in order as the assessee had not deposited the sale consideration in notified Capital Gain Scheme before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. Therefore, AO re-opened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing a notice dated 07.03.2016 under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, AO completed the re-assessment u/s. 143 read with 147 of the Act on 29.12.2016 assessing the capital gain at Rs.74,13,095/- by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal on 12.10.2022 by holding that the assessment was re-opened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- It is abundantly clear that for whatever reasons, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in question namely 2010-2011 is legally impermissible. The Tribunal, for arriving at such conclusion, placed reliance on several decisions and ultimately held that the delay in re-opening the assessment is not sanctioned by law. It was also concluded by the Tribunal that mere change of opinion on the part of the assessing officer is not a sufficient ground to re-open the assessment. We are in complete agreement with such a conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. There is no justifiable reason assigned by the Assessing Officer for not initiating action to re-open the assessment before the period prescribed under the Act. While so, we find no error in the decision of the Tribunal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
