Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - reason to believe - awarding the Petitioner compensation of ₹300/- per square metre - HELD THAT:- Neither the notice nor the reasons disclose what was suppressed by the Petitioner and how such suppression offers the AO reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. The justification belatedly offered in the impugned order by which the Petitioner's objections were disposed of cannot be regarded as a valid defence of the impugned notice. The reasons cannot be given for the first time at the stage of disposal of objections filed by the Petitioner objecting to reopen an assessment. The reasons must exist and be recorded at the time of issuing notice u/s 147/148 - The validity or otherwise of the notice u/s 147/148 is required to be determined based on such reasons existing and recorded at the time of issuance of notice. As has been repeatedly held, such reasons cannot be supplemented or substituted belatedly either by affidavits or while disposing of objections of the Petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the crucial jurisdictional parameters prescribed in the proviso to Section 147 of the IT Act i.e. assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, was not fulfilled. The impugned notice, therefore, warrants interference. We are not too sure whether the ratio of SL Lumax Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] would apply to the facts of the present case when there is no dispute that the Petitioner had furnished reference Court's award determining the market rate at ₹300/- per square metre. The record discloses that at the time of original assessment proceedings, the Petitioner had filed hardly five documents, out of which one was a copy of the judgment and award of the District Court enhancing base rate for compensation to ₹300/- per square metre. Since the impugned notice warrants interference based upon non-satisfaction with the crucial jurisdictional parameters prescribed in the proviso to Section 147 we do not propose to examine Mr Rao's contention based upon a change of opinion.
|