9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 8-10-2012 - AKIL KURESHI, HARSHA DEVANI MS., JJ, JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Akil Kureshi J.-Rule. Learned counsel, Mr. Manav A. Mehta, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. The petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is regularly assessed to tax. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated March 28, 2011, issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). By such notice, he desired to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05. At the request of the petitioner, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the undersigned is also reasonably satisfied and has the relevant reasons to believe that there has been escapement of income on account of original assessment whereby income chargeable to tax has been assessed at too low a rate, which requires reconsideration and reassessment. Therefore, on the facts of the case, the case of your concern for the assessment year 2004-05 has been reopened for reassessment of such income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment." The petitioner raised objections to such proposal for reopening under communication dated June 20, 2011. Such objections, however, were rejected by the respondent under order dated August 30, 2011. The peti- tioner has, therefore, filed this petition challenging such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 31, 2004. He, however, did agree that in the partners' capital, the break-up of transfer of reserve and surplus state sub- sidy amount of Rs. 17,33,554 was not specifically mentioned. Be that as it may, counsel challenged the impugned notice on the following contentions : 7.1 That there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner in furnishing truly and fully all material facts. Reopening for assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year was not permissible. 7.2 No taxing event took place during the year under consideration. The petitioner had received such subsidy of Rs. 17,33,554 way back in the year 1995. The income if at all accrued and was actually received thus nearly ten years back. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount by a such sum of Rs. 17,33,554, it was not immediately apparent where this amount was shifted. It is true that, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, such amount was taken into partners' capital account but without any specific mention of this amount in the break up given. Without, therefore, basing our conclusion on the question of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts, we are inclined to consider the question whether the notice was otherwise valid on the basis of the reasons recorded. In this context, we would examine whether the Assessing Officer could form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. In this respect, we find that admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
