Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

JAYESH GOVINDBHAI BALAR Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD - 3 (2) (4) - SURAT

2016 (6) TMI 700 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - assessee had purchased two immovable properties - non disclosure of income - Held that:- AO's opinion that when assessee had purchased two properties at such sizable cost, he could not have shown income of only ₹ 2.44 lacs and conclusion that 'income to the extent of huge transaction of ₹ 1,16,35,500/- had escaped assessment for AY 2008-09 ' lacks logic. There is no direct corelation between the purchase of properties by the assessee and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

closed in the returns filed. The assessee had however, shown the sale in the earlier assessment year 2007-08. Such transaction was examined and duly taxed during such period. Apart from this, with respect to this transaction also the Assessing Officer has not recorded any reasons pointing out as to in what manner he formed a belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He merely stated that the assessee had indulged in transaction of sale of immovable property valued at ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le transaction would not by itself give authority to Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 of 2016 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 27.03.2015 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer by which h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee had disclosed purchases of two immovable properties made by him during the relevant previous year at a cost of ₹ 61.76 lacs (rounded off) and ₹ 54.59 lacs along with two other persons. The assessee however, had also sold an immovable property under a deed dated 19.07.2007 for sale consideration of ₹ 33.97 lacs (rounded off). He had not disclosed this sale in the return for the assessment year 2008-09, but, had done so in the return filed for the assessment year 2007-08. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 54,59,000/- with two other personas. Shri Jayeshbhai Govindbhai Balar had also sold the immovable property valued at ₹ 33,97,858/- , it is also found that the assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 showing income ₹ 2,44,120/- where as the assessee indulged in transaction of purchase of two immovable properties valued at ₹ 61,76,500/- and ₹ 54,59,000/- and also in transaction of sale of the immovable property valued as ₹ 33,97,858/- . In view of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

necessary in the return of income. Hence, notice u/s. 148 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act 1961 is to be issued for the A.Y. 2008-09. I am therefore, Satisfied that this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2008-09. 6. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that purchases of two immovable properties were duly reflected in the assesse's return. These transactions were noticed by the Assessing Officer in the original asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the effective sale falling within the assessment year 2007-08 and had accordingly declared the same in the return filed for the said year. The Assessing Officer had also examined the details of the sale. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Mehta for the department submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the sale of the immovable property made during the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and had thus, not provided the correct information about the income. The Assessing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and fully all material facts. 10. In this context, if we revert to the reasons recorded, they contain two elements. The assessee had purchased two immovable properties valued at ₹ 61.76 lacs and ₹ 54.59 lacs respectively, whereas, he had filed return disclosing income of ₹ 2.47 lacs only. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that when assessee had purchased two properties at such sizable cost, he could not have shown income of only ₹ 2.44 lacs. He therefore, concluded .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version