2018 (8) TMI 1476 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - investment in the real estate - purchase of land in cash - Nil return was accepted without scrutiny u/s 143(1) - during the search u/s 12/133A of another person, various incriminating documents were seized - Held that - Prima facie, the Assessing Officer has material at his command to form a belief that payments in cash were made not for purchase of land property and these payments were made during the period relevant to the year under consideration. If these facts are ultimately established, the question of taxing the petitioners for such undisclosed investment would immediately arise. Reopening of the assessments therefore cannot be quashed. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of notice issued by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-2012.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer had sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment based on the information received from a search operation on Venus Group entities.
3. Whether the cash investments made by the petitioners for the purchase of land during the relevant period were unexplained income.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-2012. The notice was based on information from a search operation on Venus Group entities. The petitioner contended that no taxable event occurred during that year, as the sale transactions were completed in the previous year for which reassessments were ongoing. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had prima facie material suggesting cash payments for land purchase by the petitioners. The court held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient grounds to form a belief that undisclosed investments were made, and thus upheld the validity of the notice to reopen the assessment.

2. The Assessing Officer relied on information from a search operation on Venus Group entities to reopen the assessments. The petitioner argued that the sale transactions were completed in the previous year, and therefore, the assessment for the current year should not be reopened. However, the court found that part payments were made by the petitioners during the relevant year based on the material collected during the search operations. The court referred to a previous judgment allowing the Assessing Officer to continue reassessment under similar circumstances. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer had valid grounds to reopen the assessment based on the information gathered during the search operation.

3. The Assessing Officer alleged that the cash investments made by the petitioners for land purchase constituted unexplained income. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence to suggest such payments were made during the relevant year. However, the court found that the Assessing Officer had prima facie material indicating cash payments for land purchase by the petitioners. The court held that if these facts were established, the petitioners would be liable for taxing the undisclosed investment. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Assessing Officer's grounds to reopen the assessments based on the unexplained cash investments made by the petitioners.