Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 1337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) without scrutiny. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. There is some controversy about what precisely the reasons the Assessing Officer had recorded, in order to issue such notice. However, the gist of the reasons was that the assessee had received brokerage in cash Rs. 21,65,980/and invested a sum of Rs. 61,34,800/in cash for purchase of a residential property in a scheme situated at Kandivali (W) to be developed by one M/s Sony & Associates. According to the reasons Police Authorities had recorded the statements of various persons including the petitioner, in which such cash payment was admitted. Accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pement of income exceeding Rs. 1 lac has resulted in under assessment within the meaning of sec.147 of I.T.Act, 1961, for the A.Y. 2011-12. Hence, the case is reopened." 4. In response to the application filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons in prescribed format. The contents of which read as under: " Reasons for reopening of the assessment in the case of HIMMAT M. VIRADIYA for A.Y. 2011-12 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee has filed return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29/07/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 6,04,017/. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. Information was received regarding group of persons from diamond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case, the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, on the basis of the above findings, I have reason to believe that income of more than Rs. 61,34,800/has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 within the meaning of Explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee has filed return of income for year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated u/s 2 (40) of the Act was made and the return of only processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 are applicable to the facts of this case and the assessment year in consi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the impugned notice of reassessment. Counsel further submitted that the reference to the information received by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded was not supplied to the petitioner nor backed by any documents on record. 7. On the other hand Mr. Walve for the department opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer had recorded only one set of reasons. There is material to believe that income of the petitioner has escaped assessment. Return filed by the petitioner was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 8. It is undoubtedly true that the Department has communicated the reasons to the petitioner twice. We have taken note of both the communications and reproduced the relevant portions in this judgment. In th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Commissioner Income Tax, one would find the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. 10. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the reasons did exist on file, were duly recorded by the Assessing Officer before obtaining sanction from the Principal Commissioner, that the Joint Commissioner perused such reasons and forwarded the same to the Principal Commissioner with his own remarks and lastly that the Principal Commissioner also put his endorsement that it was a fit case for reopening of assessment. 11. The mix up by the Departmental Authorities in conveying reasons twice would not be fetal in the present case. Firstly, as noted above, we have verified that it was later set of reasons conveyed to the petitioner which exist on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates