9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, the said writ petition was disposed on 12.12.2018 with the following observations. "6. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the Assessing Officer while rejecting the objections raised against the re-opening, has only referred to the objection dated 18.11.2018 and not the objection dated 19.11.2018, wherein, the Assessee has specifically raised the question with regard to the applicability of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961. Perusal of the impugned order further indicates that the Assessing Officer except extracting some case laws and making his general observation on the power under Section 147, has not adverted to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in their objection against the reasons for re-opening, more particularly, with regard to the applicability of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Needless to state that the Assessing Officer while considering the objections raised against re-opening has to necessarily deal with each of the objections raised and express his decision on those objections. A mere statement of power vested on the authority under Section 147 is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosure by the petitioner while filing the returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the Assessing Officer while passing the scrutiny assessment order dated 27.03.2016 had considered the fact that the petitioner had sold the land to the said Company namely, Zuari Cement Limited and had received a sum of Rs.7,08,39,862/- towards land development. 7. In this connection, a specific reference was made to consider the reply filed by the petitioner before the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, wherein the issue relating to disallowance of TDS for land development expenses was considered by the Assessing Officer and while passing the assessment order dated 27.03.2016. A reference was made to paragraph 8, in particular paragraph 8.2 which reads as under: "8.2. On March 7th, 2016, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted details of party wise Land Development Expenses. From the break-up of the land development expenses, out of 1.04 acres it is seen that the land development expenses is Rs. 0.92 crores and the stamp duty is Rs.0.1 Crore and TDS borne by the Company is Rs.2,48,615/-. The AR was asked as to why the TDS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23.07.2012. 11. However, the market value of the property was Rs.3,21,61,000/-. As market value of the given property sold was more than the amount on which property has been sold by the assessee, the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made applicable. It is submitted that it cannot be countenanced, in the light of the disclosure made before the scrutiny assessment was completed by the Assessment Officer while passing the order on 27.03.2016. The case of the petitioner is that the land sold by the petitioner was an agricultural land and the same are not capital assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as far as the challenge to the communication dated 17.12.2018 is concerned, it was passed pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.33072 of 2018 and it is submitted that the said writ petition was rendered infructuous in the light of the subsequent development i.e., passing of the assessment order dated 20.12.2018. It is therefore submitted that in W.P.No.350 of 2019 challenging the communication dated 17.12.2018 overruling the objection of the petitioner issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the law in force in Maharashtra, the Agricultural lands cannot be purchased and sold by the Company. However, the transactions have been booked in the name of the petitioner/Company, even though the transactions are in the name of the Director of the Company namely Dattatreya Ramkrishna shete. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the registration of total extent of 133.62 Acres [54.09 Hectares] under the 24 different sale deeds have spanned to the period of about 3 years starting from the year 2012 and ended in the year 2015 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner incurred the entire expenses during the relevant assessment year cannot be countenanced. 19. The reasons for reopening of the assessment was on account of information received from ITO [I & CI] - II, Pune. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention to the reasons for reopening the assessment dated 20.04.2018 which reads as follows: "2.2.Meanwhile, information was received from ITO (I & CI) - 2, Pune with approval of the DIT (I & CI), Pune. As per the report, it is noted that an enquiry was conducted in the case of Shri.Dattatray Ramkrushna Shete, Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. It is therefore submitted that the entire reopening of the assessment and the consequential order passed on 17.12.2018 overruling the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the assessment vide notice dated 22.01.2018 and the impugned assessment dated 20.12.2018 are liable to be quashed, as there is no case made out for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the assessment has been reopened within 4 years from the date of original scrutiny assessment on 27.03.2016. 23. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents are fabricated cannot be countenanced, as such a finding has been arrived for the first time in the impugned assessment order dated 20.12.2018 and therefore, there is manifest violation of principles of natural justice. 24. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 25. The facts on record indicate that the petitioner company had entered into an agreement for sale of land to Mrs.Zuari Cement Limited for setting up a cement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
