9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2015 in the course of the assessment proceedings itself. Upon consideration of such disclosures, the Assessing Officer (AO) made assessment order dated 16th March, 2015 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. Mr. Desai submits that in such circumstances, merely on the basis of a change of opinion, the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, seeking to reopen the assessment. In any case, Mr. Desai submits that since, there was absolutely no failure to make true and full disclosures, there was no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, after expiry of period of 4 years from the date of assessment. On both these grounds, he submits that the Rule is liable to be made absolute in the present Petition. He relies on the cases of Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 and anr. (2012) 348 ITR 325; Zuari Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another WP No.1001 of 2007 decided on 11/4/2018; and Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) and others (No.2) [2014] 365 ITR 181 (Bom) in support of the Petition. 5. Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015, in the course of assessment proceedings before the AO had itself submitted that a few flats may have been allotted to persons in violation of Clause 10(f) of Section 80IB of the IT Act. However, in the same letter, it was contended that this ought not to be regarded as any breach of the provisions of Section 80IB or in any case, this ought not to be regarded as any breach of the provisions of Section 80IB in its entirety and at the highest, benefit may be denied in respect of the transfers made in breach of Clause 10(f) of Section 80IB of the IT Act. 10. The Petitioner has pleaded that for the present, the Petitioner does not have a copy of the letter dated 20th February, 2015 and, therefore, letters were addressed to the Respondents to furnish a copy of the same. However, the copy of the same has till date not been furnished by the Respondents. 11. The factum of address of the letter dated 20th February, 2015 is indisputable, because the Respondents have themselves not only referred to the letter dated 20th February, 2015, but also quoted from the letter dated 20th February, 2015 in the Show Cause Notice dated 17th December, 2019 issued to the Petitioner along with the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, without giving any details thereof. The notice proposing to reopen the assessment was quashed in such circumstances. 15. In the present case as well, apart from bald assertion that the Petitioner had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts, no details have been disclosed as to the material which was allegedly not disclosed either truly, or fully. Rather, the record indicates that the entire list of flat owners was disclosed. Further, vide letter dated 20th February, 2015, disclosures were made in relation to the sale transactions and it was even suggested that some of the sale transactions may not be compliant with the provisions of Clause 10(f) of Section 80IB of the IT Act. Clearly, therefore, the Respondents have failed to make out any case that there was no true and full disclosures by the Petitioner. 16. Section 147 of the IT Act empowers the AO who has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, to reassess such income, no doubt, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153 of the IT Act. The proviso to Section 147, however, makes clear that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, the material on record is clear, on that there was no failure to disclose true and full material facts on the part of the Petitioner-assessee. Therefore, the decision in S. Narayanappa (supra) can be of no assistance to the Respondents-Revenue. 22. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held sufficiency or correctness of the material on the basis of which the AO may have had 'reasons to believe' is not to be examined at the stage of determining the validity of the notices, seeking to reopen the assessment. In the present case, we have not at all adverted to the sufficiency or correctness of the material. In fact, that issue is not being addressed, since one of the essential parameters precedent to reopening of assessment, has not at all been complied with by the Revenue. 23. In Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra), there is discussion as to the circumstances in which it can be held that the notice seeking reassessment is based on a mere change of opinion by the AO. Again, we have not gone into this issue in the present matter and, therefore, the decision is really not attracted in the present case. 24. The decision in Calcutta Discoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
