TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 are required to be quashed and set aside. There is absolutely no reference to any alleged material facts which the Petitioner failed to disclose in the course of the assessment proceedings. Rather, the impugned notice refers to the list, as well as the letter issued by the Petitioner itself, which is sought to be made basis for reopening of the assessment. In this case, it is apparent that all the primary facts were disclosed by the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner had disclosed truly and fully all the material facts and it was open to the AO to take the same into account in the course of the assessment proceedings or, in any case, it was open to the AO to issue notice for reassessment within normal period of 4 years from the date of assessment. We allow the present Petition and quash and set aside the impugned notice - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2020 - M.S. SONAK KUM. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Cousnel for the Respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. Sonak, J.) Heard Mr. Shivan Desai for the Petitioner and Ms. S. Linha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, for which, the Petitioner will have ample opportunity during the reassessment proceedings. She, therefore, submits that the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. She relies on Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); S. Narayanappa vs. Commissioner of Incometax [1967] 63 ITR 219(SC); Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.(2007) 291 ITR 0500 and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ors. in support of her defence. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. In the present case, we are concerned with the Assessment Year 2012-13, for which, the Petitioner had submitted returns within the prescribed period, declaring total income of ₹ 62,233/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, which was served upon the Petitioner on 28-08-2013. Based upon the details furnished by the Petitioner to the AO, the assessment order dated 16th March 2015 was made by the AO in terms of Section 143(2) of the IT Act. 8. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the assessment order dated 16th March, 2015 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically state that the Petitioner, in the course of the assessment proceedings before the AO, had furnished a list of flat owners to whom flats were sold in the project Bay Village . The notice and the impugned order proceed to state that upon perusal of this list, coupled with the letter dated 20th February, 2015, it transpires that there was noncompliance on the part of the Petitioner with the provisions of Section 80IB, at least in so far as some of the sales were concerned. 13. Since, it is virtually an admitted fact that the Petitioner had submitted a list of the flat owners and further, itself vide letter dated 20th February, 2015 pointed out that there may be breach in so far as sale of some of the flats are concerned, it can really not be said by the Respondents that there was no truthful or complete disclosures on the part of the Petitioners in the course of the assessment proceedings itself. Merely making of bald statement that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts, is really never sufficient in such matters. 14. In the case of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra), Division Bench of this Court has held that though it is true that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reassessment under Section 147 of the IT Act is 4 years. However, in a case where the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) of the IT Act where, inter alia, the assessee fails to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year, reassessment can be made even beyond the period of 4 years in terms of Section 148 of the IT Act. Therefore, in order to sustain a notice seeking to reopen assessment beyond normal period of 4 years, it is necessary for the Respondents to establish, at least, prima facie that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. 18. In the facts of the present case, the Respondents have failed to establish this precondition even prima facie. Rather, the material on record establishes that there were full and true disclosures of all material facts necessary for the assessment of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite this, the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13 has been issued beyond the normal period of 4 years. According to us, on this short ground the impugned notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely to be drawn. However, if there are some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been underassessment as regards any primary facts which could have a material bearing on question of under-assessment, that would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the ITO to issue notice for reassessment. 25. In the present case, as noted earlier, there is absolutely no reference to any alleged material facts which the Petitioner failed to disclose in the course of the assessment proceedings. Rather, the impugned notice refers to the list, as well as the letter issued by the Petitioner itself, which is sought to be made basis for reopening of the assessment. In this case, it is apparent that all the primary facts were disclosed by the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner had disclosed truly and fully all the material facts and it was open to the AO to take the same into account in the course of the assessment proceedings or, in any case, it was open to the AO to issue notice for reassessment within normal period of 4 years from the date of assessment. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the present Petition and quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 29th March, 2019 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
