9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93,727/- and long term capital loss of Rs. 2,28,79,325/- on 31.07.2012. Further proceedings u/s. 143(3) were completed on 23.03.2015 determining income at Rs. 5,22,05,840/-. As as per information received, Mr. Avi Sheth has invested Rs. 95.33 Crores, it is not proportional to the return of income filed by the assessee. In view of the facts and documents on record coupled with the information from DDIT (Inv)-Unit-6(1), Mumbai, I have reasons to believe that income as mentioned above, chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act as the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment in its case. The approval under proviso of sec 151(1) is hereby requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar but as held in Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Supra), this is subject to the rider that there must be cogent and clear indication in the reasons supplied, that in fact there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment. If the factum of failure to disclose can be culled down from the reasons in support of the notice seeking to reopen assessment, that will certainly not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the said Act. The Court held "However, if from the reasons, no case of failure to disclose is made out, then certainly the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be ultra vires, being in excess of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the facts disclosed, on that account the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings. Where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. 8 But from the reasons, it appears that the Assessing Officer is proceeding purely on the basis of suspicion because he is unable to comprehend how a person, whose income has been assessed at Rs. 5,22,05,840/-, would have invested Rs. 95.33 Crores. An Assessing Officer is not permitted to make a roving inquiry. We are, therefore, not satisfied that the reasons given by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
