9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies in conveying reasons twice would not be fetal in the present case. Firstly, it was later set of reasons conveyed to the petitioner which exist on file. Secondly, the earlier communication dated 22nd May, 2018 also concerns the gist of same reasons. So far as the material aspects are concerned, we notice no change. In essence under communication dated 22nd May, 2018 the Assessing Officer had merely conveyed the gist of his reasons to the petitioner. The present case is one where return filed by the petitioner is accepted without scrutiny. The Assessing Officer therefore, would have much wider latitude to reopen the assessment. The reasons recorded by him show that according to the Assessing Officer, the petitioner had invested the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 21,65,980/and invested a sum of ₹ 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. According to the Assessing Officer, therefore, the cash amount of ₹ 61,34,800/was undisclosed income of the assessee, which had escaped assessment. 3. The petitioner demanded reasons from the Assessing Officer. At one stage the Assessing Officer made a following communication on 22nd May, 2018:::: Reasons recorded for reopening are as under: Information received regarding group of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: 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 ₹ 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 market who have allegedly made cash payments for purchase of residential property to be constructed at Dahanukar wadi, Kandivali(W), Mumbai, under SRA scheme by developer M/s Soni Associates. The assessee is one of the persons in this case of black money transaction/tax evasion. As per the information, it is seen that during the F.Y. 2010-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act has been obtained separately from the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the context of this controversy as to which set of reasons were on record and whether at the relevant time the reasons existed on record at all or not, we have summoned the original files from the Department. Learned counsel for the Department had made available the file of the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 file. Secondly, the earlier communication dated 22nd May, 2018 also concerns the gist of same reasons. So far as the material aspects are concerned, we notice no change. In essence under communication dated 22nd May, 2018 the Assessing Officer had merely conveyed the gist of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
