9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission or failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee as required by provisions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act. Hence, the impugned notice dated March 22, 1999, issued under section 148 of the Act, which is admittedly issued beyond a period of four years, i.e., March 31, 1997, is bad in law and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act dated March 22, 1999, is hereby quashed and set aside. - 3070 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2008 - D. A MEH TA and H. B. ANTANI JJ. Varun K. Patel for S. N. Soparkar for the petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Bhatt for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. D. A. MEH TA J.- This petition challenges the notice issued under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are violated. In so far as the third condition relating to omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment of the assessment year in question it was submitted that even in the reasons recorded, no such statement is made by the respondent authority. It was, therefore, urged that the petition is required to be allowed after quashing and setting aside the impugned notice. 4. On behalf of the respondent authority Mrs. M. M. Bhatt, learned standing counsel, has invited attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated July 27, 1999, as well as the reasons recorded which have been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. It was further submitted that the assessment order was silent in relation to the claim made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e against the income from long-term capital gain. The details of investment was as under: Rs. (1) Purchase cost of new house 23,62,500 (2) Cost of Improvement on new asset 10,46,930 34,09,430 The exemption under section 54 was actually allowable on the cost of purchase of new asset (i.e., residential house) or cost of construction of new asset only. Thus, the cost of improvement of the property incurred later on will not be qualified for exemption under section 54. The incorrect exemption granted resulted in underassessment of income of Rs.3, 48,977." 7. On a plain reading of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the respondent-authority it becomes clear that it is not even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
