TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would be safe to draw an adverse inference against the Revenue. Even in cases where the return of income has been accepted by processing under Section 143(1) reopening of an assessment can only be done when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The mere fact that the return has been processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanc to issue a reopening notice. The condition precedent of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on correct facts, must be satisfied by the Assessing Officer so as to have jurisdiction to issue the reopening notice. In the present case, the AO has proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to come to the reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. It was resolved that the assets (including immovable property) remaining after paying of the liabilities, would be distributed between its share holders in proportion to their share holding. (iii) Pursuant to the above, on 27th December, 2010, the Limited Company executed a sale deed, transferring the immovable property i.e. a flat in Geetanjali situated in Mumbai (said flat) in favour of the Petitioner and her mother Mrs. Priti Choksey to the extent their shares holding i.e. 10% and 90% in the Limited Company respectively. (iv) On 30th June, 2011, this Court ordered the dissolution of the Limited Company. This, while indicating the share holding of the Limited Company at 90% in the hands of Ms. Priti Choksey and 10% in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay High Court. Consequently, the assets in the hands on company were transferred to the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey, PAN: AFXPC9692J is assessed to tax with this charge and the consideration arising out of liquidation of the assets is charged in the hands of the assessee Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey. 3. On analysis of the information received and on the verification of the ITS details from ITD system, it is revealed that the assessee Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey has received consideration to the tune of ₹ 3,79,63,000/from the sale of immovable property of the company M/s. Samuel Dracup and Sons Pvt Ltd. The same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular, the Petitioner pointed out that the reasons in support of the impugned notice erroneously proceed on the basis that the Petitioner received a consideration of ₹ 3.79 Crores for the sale of the said flat and that this fact was not disclosed. In fact, it was pointed out in the objection that the said flat had not been sold by the Petitioner as she continues to be in possession of the same. Besides, it was pointed out that Petitioner had disclosed the amount of 10% of ₹ 3.79 Crores i.e. ₹ 38.07 lakhs as being the full value of consideration received on extinguishment of its share holding in the Limited Company in its return of income. Thus, it was the Petitioner's contention that if correct and relevant fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is correct, the same would be accepted in the reassessment order and there would be no cause for grievance. 6. It is a settled position in law that the Assessing Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue a reopening notice only when he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. This basic condition precedent is applicable whether the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by intimation or assessed by scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. [See Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., (SC) 291 ITR 500 and PCIT v/s. M/s. Shodimen Investments (Bombay) 2018 (93) Taxman.Com 153]. Further, the reasons to believe that income chargeable to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
