9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not the reason stated by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage. It is a settled position as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v/s R.B. Wadkar [2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY High Court ], that the reopening notice stands or falls by the reasons recorded at the time of reopening notice is issued. It is not permissible to add further reasons to those recorded while issuing of the reopening notice. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2015 - M S Sanklecha And N M Jamdar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Bangur For the Respondent : Mr A B Malhotra along with N A Kazi JUDGMENT (Per N. M. Jamdar,J. ) The Petitioner ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, to reassess the income. Section 147 however contains a proviso that no action under Section 147 will be taken after period of expiry of four years of the end of relevant assessment year, unless the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. 5. Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been interpreted by numerous decisions of this Court. It is settled law that the conditions specified in Section 147 are jurisdictional requirements and unless they are fulfilled no proceeding under these sections can be taken. It is open for the assessee to challenge the initiation of the reassessment proceedings, if the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure are shown at ₹ 2,10,56,138/leaving a gross surplus of ₹ 36,29,230/- which has been purportedly set off against deficit of earlier years claimed at ₹ 1,67,09,860/-. From Schedule 3 to the Balance sheet, it is seen that the assessee has received deposits/advances to the extent of ₹ 45,88,763/- from certain parties who are not members of the C.H.S. It is also seen that such deposits/advances had also been received during the preceding year to the extent of ₹ 57,493/-. The clear implication is that the assessee has allowed certain outside parties to utilize the premises of the Society for the purpose of mounting hoardings/ banners/ advertisements/ other utility equipment, essential for the promotion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for carrying repair material for repair work in their individual premises. ₹ 49,275/- 6. Advertisement charges collected from Members for displaying notices on the ground floor Notice Board in the Society premises. ₹ 23,358/- 7. Nonoccupancy charges collected from Members who have let out the premises standing in their names, to outside parties (which is over and above the annual society charges paid by the Members). ₹ 81,61,620/- 8. Car parking charges collected from Members who are parking their cars in the compound premises of the Assessee Society. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in excess of ₹ 1 lakh has escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec.147, for A.Y. 2001-2002, in the hands of the assessee M/s.The Panchratna Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. A proposal was submitted in this regard, to the Addl./dt. CIT. Range 16(3), Mumbai, requesting for necessary approved as provided u/s 149 to reopen the proceedings for A.Y. 2001-02 in the case of M/s.The Panchratna Coop. Hsg. Soc. and for the issue of a Notice u/s 148 accordingly. The Addl. Jt. CIT Range 16(3)/147/ 2006-07, dt. 15.03.2007 has agreed with the proposal submitted by the undersigned and has also given his reason in a separate sheet which forms items 11 of the proposal for reopening assessment u/s 147. In view of the above mentioned reasons, a Notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the reasons would show that all the necessary and relevant facts were in fact furnished by the Petitioner. 9. Thus, firstly, there is no failure to make full and true disclosure of necessary facts which is the jurisdictional requirement for initiating reopening proceedings after period of four years as per the proviso to Section 147. Secondly, the reasons do not show that there was any failure to disclose. Mr. Malhotra, on behalf of the respondent-revenue contended that the Petitioner filed a return before a wrong authority and, therefore, that earlier return was not a return in the eyes of law. This is not the reason stated by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage. It is a sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
