9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, for that assessment year. May be the method adopted by the assessee was not correct. He ought to have submitted the revised return of income. However, by that itself, cannot confer the jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to initiate the reassessment proceedings and/or reopen the assessment in exercise of powers under section 147 of the Act beyond the period of four years unless and until the assessee did not truly and fully disclosed the material fact, which was necessary for the purpose of assessment. Under the circumstances, in the present case, the condition precedent for initiation of the proceedings beyond the period of four years under section 147 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner filed original return of income for AY 2008-2009 on 26.9.2008 declaring total loss at ₹ 4,57,137/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.8.2009 and duly served upon the assesssee. Subsequently, a questionnaire was issued on 6.1.2010 calling for certain details/information and clarifications u/s 142(1) of the Act from the assessee, which was duly served upon the assessee. That during the year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property for ₹ 35 lac resulting in capital loss of ₹ 4,57,137/-. That on the basis of the information received from the Sub Registrar, Surat - 3 (Navagam) regarding valuation of the said pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings beyond the period of four years. At at the instance of the assessee, the Assessing Officer served the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, which reads as under: 1 Name address of the assessee Shri Chandrakant K. Singapuri Plot No.97, Tekra No.2, Umarwada Koyali Khandi, Opp - Deshbandhu Transport, Umarwada, Surat 2 PAN : AGUPS7995J 3 Status : Individual 4 AY : 2008-2009 Scrutiny of the assessment records reveal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the period of expiry of four years was not permissible. That by order dated 10.10.2014, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections against the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment for AY 2008-2009 and has decided to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Deepak Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the reopening of the assessment for AY 2008-2009 u/s 147/148 of the Act is absolutely illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that as such, at the time of original assessment, the assessee made full and true disclosure of all the material f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original return of income, the assessee claimed the indexed cost of property at ₹ 38,57,137/-. It is submitted that in absence of any revised return of income claiming the indexed cost of the property at ₹ 93,98,488/-, the indexed cost of the property was required to be considered at ₹ 38,57,137/-. It is submitted that despite the above, the Assessing Officer considered the revised computation of income and considered the indexed cost of the property at ₹ 93,98,488/-. It is submitted that therefore, when the Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that there is escapement of income of ₹ 55,41,351/- in the hands of the assessee, it was required to be taxed by reopening the assessment under section 147 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal assessment proceedings, the assessee did claim the indexed cost of property at ₹ 93,98,488/- may be without filing any revised return of income and by submitting only revised computation of income. However, the same came to be considered by the Assessing Officer and while computing the long term capital gain, the Assessing Officer considered the indexed cost of property of Rs.Rs.93,98,488/- as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, for that assessment year. May be the method adopted by the assessee was not correct. He ought to have submitted the revised return of income. However, by that itself, cannot confe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
