9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was error in computation of the “indexed cost of acquisition on 1st April, 1981” - they are based on the opinion of an officer posted in Chennai - It is stated in the body of the reasons that it is based on such opinion - Therefore the assessment of the case of the assessee was sought to be reopened not on the basis of non-disclosure of income or concealment of income or under assessment of income but on a change of opinion. Relying upon Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax And Others (No.1) [2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY High Court] - the formal reasons given in support of reopening the case cannot be added to or subtracted from or improved in the affidavit-in-opposition - the assessment was sought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mputation of ITO-II, (I CI), Chennai-34 the cost of acquisition as per cost index on 01/04/1981 is ₹ 1,30,49,560/-. The assessee company has claimed excess cost of acquisition by ₹ 13136923/- and income from Capital G Gain has been under assessed. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The reasons are dated 05th February, 2013. Under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if an assessment is sought to be reopened after four years it can be done on the satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner which has to be recorded. The satisfaction has to be to the effect that it is a fit case for issuance of such a notice. It appears from annexure-D of the affidavit-in-opposition th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 151 of the said Act. The next point of challenge were the reasons itself. The department cannot act beyond the reasons furnished. The only basis for reopening the assessment was error in computation of the indexed cost of acquisition on 1st April, 1981 . According to the assessee it was ₹ 2,61,86,482.70., according to the computation of ITO-II, (I CI), Chennai-34 it was ₹ 1,30,49,560/-. If this variation was true, the assessee was liable to pay higher Capital Gains Tax. Now, Mr. Bajoria challenges these reasons, very rightly, on the ground that they are based on the opinion of an officer posted in Chennai. It is stated in the body of the reasons that it is based on such opinion. Therefore the assessment of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
