9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed on 29.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 48,74,33,250/. He return was duly processed under Sec.143(1) of the I.T. Act on 07.05.2011 assessing total income at Rs. 48,74,33,252/. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income tax Act as passed on 30.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs. 48,78,06,437/. It has been gathered that the Company owned a land which was purchased in the year 1995-56, at a cost of Rs. 4,22,259/which was converted into stockintrade. He fair value of land as on 01.04.1981 stood at Rs. 12,82,000/. On the said land company has constructed a commercial complex admeasuring 52759 Sq. ft., out of which 2641 sq. ft. of area had been sold during A.Y. 2012-13. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions: I. The original assessment was framed after scrutiny. Impugned notice has been issued beyond a 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. There was no external material available with the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. II. The Assessing Officer was acting at the behest of the audit party. Impugned notice has been issued only on the basis of audit objections. III. Even otherwise, the reasons lack validity. The petitioner's computation of capital gain was legally correct. 4. On the other hand, learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. As observed by Supreme Court in case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 237 ITR 321, even if an issue has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the audit party, reopening may be permissible if it can be gathered that having applied his mind to such an issue, the A.O. formed an independent belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, as held by this Court in case of Adani Exports vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax reported in (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) and several times repeated by the Supreme Court later, reopening cannot be resorted to under the insistence of the audit party, particularly when the Assessing Officer holds a contrary belief. From this angle, we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
