TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. He seems to be presuming that when the assessee had made purchase worth such huge amounts, he must disclose sizable income. Additionally, these purchases had come up for discussion by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny. With respect to the assessee's sale of land valued at ₹ 33.97 lacs, it is true that the same was not disclosed 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer passed order of assessment on 22.12.2010 assessing income of the assessee at ₹ 2.41 lacs (rounded off). 4. In the return of income, the assessee 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. 5. In order to reopen the assessment for the said assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 assessment proceedings. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. He further pointed out that the assessee was not the sole purchaser and that the share of the assessee was of 49.65% of these two properties which was duly reflected in the return also. 7. With respect to the sale of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 that ' income to the extent of huge transaction of ₹ 1,16,35,500/- ... had escaped assessment for AY 2008-09 '. This reason completely lacks logic. There is no direct corelation between the purchase of properties by the assessee and his disclosure of the income during a particular period. The reason is vague and relies on the presumptions on the part of the Assessing Officer. He seems to be presuming that when the assessee had made purchase worth such huge amounts, he must disclose sizable income. Additionally, these purchases had come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
