Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Bhupatbhai Popatbhai Siyani (Huf),, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (3),, ... on 24 March, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण: राजकोट यायपीठ: राजकोट
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT
BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.43/RJT/2016
नधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2006-07
Bhupatbhai PopatbhaiSiyani(HUF) The Income Tax
2, Govind Park, RameshNivas, Vs Officer, Ward-2(3),
Gundawadi Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot
PAN : AAFHB9875D
अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri M.J. Ranpura, C.A
Revenue by : Shri Avinash Kumar, D.R
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 21/03/2017
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 24/03/2017
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 18.11.2015 for assessment year 2006-07.
2. The assessee has, inter-alia, taken a ground that Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal relating to reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had e-filed its return of income declaring nil income on 31/03/2007 which was processed u/s.143(1) accepting the return of income. The case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s.148 dated 08/03/2011. The assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 24/11/2011. The reopening was done primarily because the sale value of the property had been 2 ITA-43/Rjt/2016 Bhupatbhai P. Siyani (HUF) shown at Rs.3,50,000/- (1/6th shares). However, for stamp duty purposes, the valuation was adopted at Rs.6,07,033/-(1/6th share). Thus, there was understatment of sale price of the property to the extent of Rs,2,57,033/-. The assessee in its reply dated 21/11/2011, inter-alia, pointed out as under:-
''The assessee has claim deduction against the sale for new purchase of agricultural land hence there is not liability to pay tax against the sale of property. The said property was ancestral property hence this transaction fall into assessee's HUF account. We have also shown this transaction in our return filed for A.Y. 2006-07 and also for return filed u/s.148 for A.Y.2006-07.The said property was ancestral property. The said assessee is not maintaining their books of account."
In its further reply, the assessee has clarified that it had sold ancestral property in the capacity of HUF but by mistake quoted individual PAN in both the sale of property and new purchase of property.
4. After considering the above explanation, the total income was computed at nil, after allowing benefit of section 54B.
5. Assessing Officer, again issued notice u/s.148 dated 18/03/2013 for withdrawing the claim under section 54B to the tune of Rs.5,03,085/- The Assessing Officer, inter-alia, observed in para 4 as under:-
''Further, verification of purchase deed reg. no.3733/2055 dated 13.05.2005 (claimed exemption u/s 54B) assessee has purchased a agriculture land in the capacity of individual (PAN: AGRPS7805A), in fact he is the only purchaser which is clearly reveled from the purchase deed submitted in support of deduction claim u/s.54-B of the Act.'' He denied deduction u/s.54B observing that assessee was not entitled for deduction of Rs.5,03,085/- in the capacity of HUF.
6. From the above sequence of events, it is evident that subsequent reassessment proceedings have been initiated solely on the basis of
3 ITA-43/Rjt/2016 Bhupatbhai P. Siyani (HUF) change of opinion because in the first reassessment proceedings, the assessee had clearly pointed out that there was mistake in mentioning of PAN number in the sale and purchase deed. That could not change the substance of transaction. Subsequent notice being issued solely on the basis of change of opinion, the same is bad in law and accordingly quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 24th March, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (S.V. MEHROTRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Rajkot, Dated 24/03/2017
*Manish
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. अपीलाथ / Appellant-
2. यथ / Respondent-
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT/DIT
4. आयकर आयु त- अपील / CIT (A)-IV, Rajkot
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, राजोकट / DR, ITAT, Rajkot
6. गाड फाइल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण/ ITAT, Rajkot