TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner; rather the petitioner along with co-sharers sold their ancestral land. This fact is further corroborated with the averments made wherein the revenue had admitted that due to typographical error/oversight the sale of land has been typed as purchase of land. This is not permissible in the eye of law. It is well settled principles with regard to reassessment. A reassessment proceeding is to be adjudged on the basis of reason to believe disclosed to the Assessee and the said reasons cannot be supplemented by the revenue as the reasons have to speak for themselves. The law is now no more res-integra that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the assessing officer. No substitution or deletion is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the materials available on record for claiming wrong exemption by the petitioner. WP allowed. - Hon ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Vaibav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Deepak Roshan, J: The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-7); whereby the objection preferred by the petitioner to the reassessment notice for the AY 2017-18 has been rejected by holding that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reasons to re-open the case and also for quashing of the entire proceeding for reassessment of the petitioner pertaining to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assessee did not purchased any immovable property during the relevant assessment year; rather he along with the co-owners have sold a property vide sale deed which was ancestral agricultural land and the same was sold for a consideration of ₹ 1,80,60,000/- , out of which petitioner s share which was received by him through banking channel was of ₹ 22,57,500/- and the same was disclosed in the income tax return of the petitioner for the AY 2017-18. He further submits that the reasons for reopening was thus incorrect and without any basis. Learned counsel contended that it is a settled law that reasons must speak for themselves and any subsequent attempt to supply the omiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the respondents defending the revenue inter-alia submits that on perusal of the computation of income filed in the instant petition, it would appear that the petitioner during the relevant year has shown sale of agricultural land and has claimed exemption from income tax for such sale of land under Section 10 of the Act. It is important to consider that it is clear from Schedule A of the sale deed dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the nature of the land sold by the petitioner is residential land and not agricultural land as falsely claimed by the petitioner in its computation of income and also in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thus the petitioner s income has escaped assessment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner after getting the notice under Section 148 of the Act (Annexure-3), filed an objection (Annexure-6) taking all grounds that there is no escaped assessment. Pursuant thereto; objection preferred by the petitioner was rejected (Annexure-7) holding therein at paragraph-7 as under:- 7. The AO has concrete reasons to reopen the case under Section 148. It is observed that the assessee had during the year under consideration purchased immovable property valued of ₹ 1,80,60,000/- on 09.03.2017. Sl. No. Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have to speak for themselves. 7. The law is now no more res-integra that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the assessing officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded by the AO cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced. Admittedly, in the instant case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
