TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had shown cash on hand a very meager amount i.e. the assessee had shown cash in hand in return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 ₹ 0/- and therefore, the A.O. had noted that the Company had no cash balance in the last year for the purchase of property in cash as well as the Company cannot take unsecured loan or advance from customer in cash. Therefore, the A.O. has reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 in which the petitioner has purchased the property by paying ₹ 2,64,88,300/- in cash. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no tangible material with the A.O. to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procon Pvt. Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings Shri Bhavin M.Patel has stated that the said land is purchased by the two companies i.e. (i) Iskon Procon Pvt. Ltd. - 13 14M, Vijay Shopping Centre, Sector-11, Gandhinagar and (ii) Chehar Reality Pvt. Ltd. Further, Shri Bhavin M.Patel has stated on oath in his statement dated 25/10/2016 that the fund of ₹ 2,64,88,300/- being share of ₹ 5,29,76,600/- (in cash) for purpose of property is made by the Company i.e. Chehar Reality Pvt. Ltd. and also Chehar Reality Pvt. Ltd. has confirmed the purchase transaction of the said property, in question. Since the main reason for the scrutiny is skipped by the assessee on the Chehar Reality Pvt. Ltd. s case and Company s case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, vie order dated 8/2/2017, the A.O. has disposed of the said objections and has inter-alia held that the reopening is valid. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15. 3.00. Mr.Talsania, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. 3.01. Mr.Talsania, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that while assuming jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, A.O. has acted illegally and without jurisdiction. 3.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome for purchasing the property in question. It is submitted that for verification of the Accounts there cannot be any reassessment proceedings. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-V Versus Orient Craft Ltd., rendered in ITA No.555 of 2012; decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Smt. Maniben Valji Shah, reported in (2006) 283 ITR (Bombay) as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krupesh Ghanshyambhai Thakkar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 293 (Gujarat), it is requested to admit / allow the present petition and quash and set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, it cannot be said that there was no tangible material with the A.O. to form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2014-15 within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. 4.02. Now, so far as the case on behalf of the assessee that the assessee Company had received amount in cash from the persons who booked the bungalows and from the said advance money the assessee had purchased the property in question is concerned, it is required to be noted that the A.O. has noted the same in his reasons recorded and has observed that even the said huge amount in cash from the customers could not have been accepted by the assessee. In any case, the aforesaid is required to be considered during the reasses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
