9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn - There is no tangible material to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge on the date when it sold 291 lacs shares to PSPL ESOP Management Trust at Rs.143/per share that there was to be a scheme of buyback of share at Rs.251/per share in the future - The allegation of suppression is made without any factual basis in support of the same. The present proceeding seeking to reopen an assessment for assessment year 2006-07 is without jurisdiction as there has been true and full disclosure of all material particulars necessary for assessment by the petitioner during the assessment proceeding leading to the assessment order dated 20 February 2008 for assessment year 2006-07 – thus, there is no reason to consider the petition's submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded before issuing a notice dated 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act. The reasons as recorded read as under: Reasons recorded for reopening in the case of Shri. Shridhar Bhalchandra Shukla for A.Y.2006-07 Assessment in this case has been made on 28-02-2008 for A.Y. 2006-07 at an income of Rs.7,06,26,050.The AO has disallowance on account of HRA exemption. Assessee has shown long term capital gain on sale of shares of Persistant Systems Pvt. Ltd. Necessary confirmation has also been given by the company during the Assessment proceedings. Assessee has sold the following shares the details of which are as under: Sr. No. Name of Shares of company To whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3,14,73,360. Therefore the A.O. Gravely erred in non taking these suppressed sale receipts of Rs.3,14,73,360. I have reasons to believe that income of Rs.3,14,73,360/has escaped assessment. Issue notice u/s.148. Approval from CITIV for reopening the case has been received vide his letter dated 223/ 213. Issue notice u/s.148. Notice u/s 148 issued to the assessee on 22.3.2013. 5) In response to the above reasons the petitioner by his letter dated 19 December 2013 objected to the same by pointing out that the notice to reopen the assessment is based on mere change of opinion amounting to review. It was pointed out that all the material on which the assessment is sought to be reopened was available during the proceeding l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12006 @ Rs.251 per share. This share price is therefore the Fair market value of shares as per assessee's own admission. But the assessee has sold the shares of same company to PSPL ESOP Management Trust a Trust of the same company just 20 days before that date i.e. 16-12-2005. The notice to the shareholder as per companies Act ought to have been issued 21 days before the Board meeting authorizing buyback of shares. Thus, it would be clear that assessed it appears was aware that the company was contemplating buyback of shares @ 251 per share. Thus the assessee has sold shares @ 143 when it appears he was aware that the buyback offer was @ 251. Thus, there is suppression in sale price of shares of Rs.108 per shares and the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable. c) The fact that the petitioner had sold 291420 of shares on 16 December 2005 to PSPL ESOP Management Trust at a price of Rs.143/per share and on 6 January 2006, 393580 shares of Persistent Systems Limited were sold to the company in its scheme of buyback at the rate of Rs.251/per share. In fact, attention was invited to enquiry made with regard to sale of shares during the course of assessment proceeding under Section 143(3)of the Act. In particular, the petitioner was asked for details of capital gain on shares. It is the petitioner's case that during the assessment proceeding not only the details of capital gain on shares were given but petitioner had also submitted the letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment or any finding in the impugned order dated 14 January 2014 that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons for reopening as well as the impugned order dated 12 January 2014 proceed on the basis that the petitioner ought to have known that the company was contemplating buyback of its shares at Rs.251/per share and that this not sharing of information amount to suppression. This is merely an opinion/inference drawn not from any tangible material such as notice etc. but merely on the suspicion that the petitioner ought to have known. There is no tangible material to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge on the date when it sold 291 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
