9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been made by the officer to serve the notice on the petitioners by generating the notice on 30/3/2015 and sending the same by registered post on 31/3/2015. Of course, no notice was sent or issued in the address shown in the return. But there is an explanation for the same. Whenever notices are sent, it is being received by unauthorized persons and therefore they have found out the address of the assessee from the registered document and notice was sent by registered post on 31/3/2015. As held by the Apex Court, once the notice is issued, thereafter, assessment can be taken only after service of notice. There is proof to show that notice has been issued and therefore, it is of the view that the authorities have complied with the requirements of the statute in accordance with law. As already found that the notice had been issued within the period of limitation, it would suffice as far as the proceedings are concerned. There is no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners - assessee. - W.P. (C) Nos. 17509 & 17571 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2017 - A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.R.SREEJITH, KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH, KUM.MEKHALA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the assessee Anappadikal Hospitality Private Ltd has purchased certain lands in Ponamallee Taluk from the petitioner for a registered value of ₹ 2.21 crores while the guideline value to be adopted for stamp duty purpose was ₹ 2,57,55,000/-. Certain factors like the situation of the property in an industrialized and urbanised area, the present nature of the property, classification of land as residential for the purpose of fixation of guideline value, the high price realisation for small extent of land etc tempted the assessing officer to form an opinion that the petitioner is not an agriculturist but an industrialist and arrived at a conclusion that the land sold is not agricultural land but a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the IT Act, the transfer of which gives rise to capital gains. It is stated that the petitioner had indicated in the return that she had sold agricultural property situated in Nemily Grama Panchayat in Tamil Nadu acquired by her in the year 1998 for a certain consideration. According to the officer, it was not a full and true disclosure within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147 of the IT Act. There is also a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, he can be said to have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The said expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. What is required is reason to believe but not an established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issuing of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a person could have formed the requisite belief. Whether the material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. 8. In regard to maintainability of the writ petition, there is no doubt about the proposition that when an alternate remedy is available, the interference of Court is very limited especially in taxing statutes. However, when a question of law is raised especially in regard to limitation, which is clearly borne out by records, nothing prevents this Court from entertaining the said writ petition and deciding the same. Hence, there is no reason to reject the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. 9. The only question to be considered is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncern namely Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd, Kochi-16. It is therefore contended that the 13 days delay in service of notice is fully attributable to the assessee. The assessing officer further observed that though under Section 148, the notice is to be served, Section 151 (1) prescribes that notice should be issued within 4/6 years time as the case may be. Further it is contended that subsequent to issue of notice under Section 148, the assessee's representative had appeared and participated in the reopened assessment proceedings and the issues involved in the assessments were put to them and their explanations were obtained and placed on record. Therefore, placing reliance on section 292B/292BB of the IT Act, it is held that there is a valid notice under Section 140. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 292B or 292BB has no application to the facts of the case and it is wrongly invoked. Apparently, the aforesaid provisions will not apply. The petitioner had raised an objection regarding maintainability of the reassessment on the ground of limitation by stating that the notice under Section 148 has been issued beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
