9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a non-filer. The assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2005-06. There was information from ITS details of AIR transactions that the assessee has purchased immovable property on 21/10/2004 at Rs. 35,000/-. In view of the said information, notice u/s. 148 dated 27/03/2012 was issued and served on the assessee. There was no response. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) dated 8/10/2012 was issued and served upon the assessee. 5. As per AIR transactions, the assessee had purchased immovable property (flat) on 21.10.2004 at Rs. 35,00,000/- at 2-C, Oister Apartment, Colaba. The assessee vide letter dated 2.10.2012 denied any such transaction; and stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e flats was considered by AO as business income. 6. However, AO has finalised the assessment assessing business profit of Rs. 60,80,800/- and addition on account of unaccounted sales of Rs. 46,89,127/-. Thus, the income of assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,07,69,927/-. Before the CIT(A), it was pleaded that no addition has been made by AO with respect to the reasons for which assessment was reopened. It was also submitted that the reason for reopening was recorded for Colaba Flat, however the AO has not disputed the contention of assessee with respect of Colaba Flat and therefore it is not open for him to assess any other income, and therefore, he had acted beyond his jurisdiction, and the notice U/S 148 and reassessment need to be quashed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscount Co. Ltd. v. ITO 41 ITR 191 (SC): It is the duty of assessee to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. If there are some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been any non-disclosure as regards any primary facts, which could have a material bearing on question of 'under-assessment' that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to ITO to re-open the assessment. In the present case, the appellant had not disclosed the income in respect of Radhakrishna Niwas, which could have been considered as non-disclosure of primary fact; however, such non-disclosure by the appellant was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by AO before issue of notice u/s 148. For assuming jurisdiction over such case, the AO was required to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 437 (SC): It was held that duty was cast upon assessee to make true and full disclosure of primary facts at the time of original assessment, and it is for income tax officer to draw correct inference from primary facts. It was further held that if ITO draws inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion in regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening assessment. I find the said case to be In respect of re-opening the assessment based on "change of opinion", which is not the subject matter of appellants case. 4.9. In view of the above, the appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
