9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and securities for the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13.19 lacs (rounded off). Such return was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 23.12.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act determining total income of assessee at Rs. 14.33 lacs (rounded off). 4. To reopen such assessment, the respondent issued the impugned notice, which as can be seen, was done beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. To issue the notice, he had recorded following reasons: " In this case the assessee filed return of income for the above assessment year on 22/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 13,98,560/. Assessment order u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated nil. Such objections were however rejected by the respondent by an order dated 22.02.2016. Hence, this petition. 6. Taking us through the materials on record, counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions. I. The notice of reopening has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. II. The issue of investments in shares by the petitioner during the year under consideration was examined by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment. III. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer lack validity. On the basis of such reasons, it cannot be said that any income chargeabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e money payable to the assessee on account of purchase of 1,33,333 preference shares of Krunal Oil Marketing Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 1650/per share. The reasons further state that the cost of acquisition of preference shares of Krunal Oil Marketing Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee was not furnished. There is no reason to assume that the shares commanded any premium over the face value of Rs. 10 per share at the time of issue, looking to the fact that Krunal Oil Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is a small company treating in the edible oils. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, adopting Rs. 10 per share of Krunal Oil Marketing Pvt. Ltd. for 1,33,333 shares would workout to a cost of acquisition at Rs. 13,33,330/. As against this, the assessee received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra preferential shares was immediately not visible from the declaration made by the petitioner. This is therefore, a case where a further scrutiny would be permissible even if the notice for reopening is issued beyond a period of four years from beyond the period of relevant assessment year. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner held no shares in Krunal Oil Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and the amount of Rs. 21.99 crores against Krunal Marketing's preferential share was mere mistake. In this writ petition, at this stage, we cannot examine these aspects and uphold the mere declaration of the petitioner that the entry in the investment accounts was accounting error and the real nature of transaction was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
