TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d assessment - The reasons for reopening indicate prima facie that the interest deduction claimed under the head "income from other sources" could not have been claimed as the loan was obtained for the purpose of residential property and the claim for interest u/s 24 of the Act could not be granted as no property was purchased from the loan taken - it cannot be said at this stage that there was no reason to believe in the mind of the AO that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the purpose of issuing the notice dated 29 February 2012 – The decision in CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] followed - Decided against Assessee. - Writ Petition No. 878 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2014 - M. S. Sanklecha And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Purchase in Purpose of Loan segment. 2. The case records for AY 2005-06 contain a certificate from HDFC Ltd. (which the assessee has attached), giving his statement of interest (Rs.53,65,251/-) and Principal (Rs.16,81,065/-) paid from 1/4/2004 to 31/3/2005.In this certificate, the following two things are noted:- a) The Certificate states - This is to certify that Mr. Nishith Desai (Loan Account No. HO/1323564) has/have been granted a Housing Loan of ₹ 7,00,00,000 @ 8.25% per annum in respect of the following property. Flat No.51, NCPA Residential Apartments,Sir Dorabji Tata Road, Nariman Point, Bombay . Thus, this is clearly a Housing Loan taken for the purpose of purchasing the aforementioned property. But the bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for purchase of residential property and is not linked to earning any Income from other sources . Thus, the interest expense of ₹ 53,65,251.0 cannot be allowed as a deduction to the assessee either u/s.24(b) or u./s.57. In view of all the above, I have reason to believe that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. Hence, the assessment is reopened u/s.148 asper the provisions of the I.T. Act with prior approval of CIT-11, Mumbai vide letter No. CIT-11/Reopening u/s. 147/2011-12 dated 23/2/2012 . 3. The petitioner objected to the above reasons by communication dated 16 April 2012 to the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. The petitioner pointed out that as the impugned notice seeks to reopen a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- (a) the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2005-06 did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for its issue viz. failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all necessary material facts for assessment. It is the case of the petitioner that all facts have been disclosed along with the return of income; (b) the principle of consistency was urged in support of its submission that in any case all facts were to the knowledge of the department as the same were considered during the assessment proceedings for the earlier Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and even subsequent Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 when the orders for assessment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original assessment places reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Atul Kumar Swami (2014) 362 ITR 693 (Delhi).The aforesaid decision to our mind is completely distinguishable from the present facts for the reason that in the notice U/s.148 of the Act issued in the case of Atul Kumar Swami (supra) did not disclose any fresh material warranting reopening of assessment. In the present case the grounds for reopening specifically point out that fresh material was received by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, from the above facts, it prima facie appears that the Assessing officer on the basis of the information obtained during the assessment proceeding for A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t HDFC Certificate stating that the loan from HDFC was for housing purposes. Nor any statement was made that the loan from HDFC Ltd. for housing purpose was utilized for debenture purchases. In any case, this issue whether or not the information disclosed during the earlier or subsequent assessment year is sufficient to attribute a forming of an opinion on the part of the Assessing officer is best to be considered during the reassessment proceedings. At this stage, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned notice as the reasons for reopening referred to material obtained during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10. 9. The reasons for reopening indicate prima facie that the interest deduction claimed under the head income fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
