9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of non-agriculture land belonging to the petitioner was registered on 26.03.2010 which recorded that the land was sold for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs to one Urmil Gandabhai Patel. Upon coming to know about such transaction, the Assessing Officer made inquiries with the petitioner by issuing notice dated 15.02.2016. Petitioner was asked to produce details of the capital accounts and necessary supporting evidence concerning the transaction. According to the petitioner, this notice was sent to her old address which she did not receive. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not respond to this notice. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice for reopening. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons: "Reasons for reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of land and stated that the said land was sold by Urmilbhai Gandabhai Patel, Ahmedabad by making fake general power of attorney and documented sale deed in his name. In support of this the assessee has furnished copy of FIR and complaint filed against U.G.Patel in the Court. The contention of the assessee is considered but found not acceptable as the complaint made by the assessee is pending till date and no decision or further details filed by the assessee hence, it is premature to say that there is no transaction. 4. On verification of return of income filed for AY 2011-12 it is noticed that the assessee has not shown any amount of capital gain under the head "Capital Gain". On further verification of complaint filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s. 148 has been obtained separately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad as per the provisions of section 157 of the Act." 3. The petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening under a communication dated 28.08.2018. Hence, this petition. 4. Material on record would show that the return filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of real income theory should be applied. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 ITR 746. 6. At this stage of reopening of assessment, we are not inclined to interfere for the following reasons: The return filed by the petitioner was accepted without scrutiny. It is by now well settled that in such a situation, the Assessing Officer would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. Since in the original assessment no scrutiny was undertaken, the Assessing Officer cannot be stated to have formed an opinion. The principle of change of opinion therefore would not apply. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
