TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposing of the objection. As perused the detail objections raised by the petitioner and the documents produced alongwith the same and also the order passed by the Assessing Officer disposing of such objections. We do not find that the Assessing Officer had dealt with the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is in a position to establish that the shares in question were held by Savoy Finance for a period in excess of one year and therefore, there was no liability to pay capital gain tax on the proceeds of sale of shares. In facts of the present case, therefore, we ask the AO to consider this objection of the petitioner and give his specific finding through a speaking order. For this limited purpose, we place the matter bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This return was accepted without scrutiny in terms of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons: Annexure M/s The Swastik Safe Deposit Investments Ltd. PAN AAACT 3608G A.Y. 2011-12 Reasons for Reopening Information was received from the office of ITO 8(1)(3) Mumbai, wherein it was found that M/s Savoy Finance and Investment Private Limited being a Non Filer of Return of Income for A.Y. 2011-12 had entered in Sale of Share; On further verification of ITS details of M/s. Savoy Finance and Investment Private Limited for F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 it is see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Swastik Safe. In the return of income filed by the Swatik Safe, only a sum of ₹ 83.34 crores as a full sale consideration of shares was shown, declaring capital gain of ₹ 57.87 lakhs. The Assessing Officer therefore held a belief that the sum of ₹ 322.36 crores upon sale of shares of Piramal Healthcare by Savoy Finance had escaped assessment. 6. The petitioner filed detailed objections to the notice of reopening of assessment under a communication dated 9th October, 2018 and followed it up with another set of objections dated 26th October, 2018. Alongwith these objections the petitioner had produced several documents. The crux of the petitioner's objection to the notice of reopening of assessment was that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er a period over one year and that therefore, sale of such shares would not attract capital gain tax. Assessing Officer did not consider this objection in light of the documents produced. (iv) He submitted that merely because in the return filed the petitioner did not mention the factum of sale of shares, would not enable the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment if necessary conditions were not fulfilled. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Mohanty opposed the petitioner contending that: (i) At the stage of issuance of notice, the Assessing Officer is not required to establish beyond doubt that invariably the additions would be sustained. (ii) The Court while examining the reasons recorded by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance before its merger with the assessee-company had sold substantial number of shares of Piramal Healthcare for a sale consideration of ₹ 322.36 crores. In the return of income filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 relevant to the period of sale of shares after merger of Savoy Finance with the petitioner, this sale was not reflected. In the column requiring the petitioner to declare if any capital gain exempt from tax is received, the petitioner showed a figure of Nil . This is undoubtedly not a correct declaration. This by itself would not be the conclusive of the question whether the proceeds of sale of shares was otherwise taxable as a capital gain and that therefore, reopening of assessment would be necessary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
