CIT v. John Ettimootil Samuel (2021) 283 Taxman 39 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Additional stamp duty-Not mentioning the built-up area-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was held to be not valid. [S. 45, 5OC, 148, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, S. 47A, 70(2)]

Assessee had declared long-term capital gains on sale consideration and got levied with compounding fees by registry authority under section 70(2) of the Indian Stamp act, 1899, which was inclusive of 8% stamp duty and 1% registration fee, for not mentioning correct built-up area of concerned structure ct. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was reopened and addition was made as per section 50C of the Act. Tribunal held that reassessment was not valid. On appeal by the revenue dismissing the appeal the Court held that since assessee had disclosed fully and truly all necessary details including sale deed and documents with regard to payment of stamp duty and additional stamp duty during original assessment, reopening of assessment after period of four years was not justified.  (AY. 2005-06)