9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged notice of reopening dated 31.03.2017 to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts are as under. 4. The Assessing Officer issued impugned notice to reopen3. The petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of diamond cutting and polishing. For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner had filed the return of income, declaring total income of ₹ 21.77 lakhs (rounded off) on 29.09.2012. Such return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer who passed the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 31.03.2015 making a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st long term capital loss of ₹ 11,62,152/claimed by the assessee. The capital gain arises on the sale of industrial plot is tabulated here under: Description Cost of acquisition (Rs.) FY acquisition Indexed cost Sale considerati on Long term capital gain Industrial plot at Mangrol 43,246/- 91-92 (cost/199/7 85 1,70,594 11,63,423 992829 Accordingly, the long term capital gain of ₹ 9,92,829/is required to be brought to tax. I have, therefore, reason to believe that income of ₹ 9,92,829/has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is, therefore, necessary to initiate action u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2012-13." 5. The petitioner rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,364,364 Land Value 43,246 Total cost ₹ 1,407,610 Index for 1991-92 199 Index for 2005-06 497 Index for 2011-12 785 2,325,575 Long term capital gain (A) (1,162,152)" IV. In the return filed by the assessee also, he had given similar figures, however, in different break up relating the sale of industrial plot at Mangrol. The assessee did disclosed that the indexed cost was ₹ 1.76 lakhs and the sale consideration was ₹ 11.63 lakhs. However simultaneously, he had also shown that he had spent ₹ 13.64 lakhs in construction of a building and taken the sale price of the building at Nil. Whatever be the validity of the petitioner's such working out, the fact remains that when the Assessing Officer show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
