9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted herein below: The petitioner did not furnish his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 for the reason that he was having income lower than the basic exemption limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act and Rules. A notice dated 08.04.2016 issued by the ITO Ward No.3, Chittorgarh was received by the petitioner proposing to initiate assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. While complying with the said notice, the petitioner filed return of the income in the prescribed format on 09.05.2016 and declared his income for the said assessment year i.e. 2013-14 as Rs.45,000/-. While declaring his income in the return, the petitioner claiming loss of Rs.2,21,429/- on the sale of a residential property located at Ambe Vihar Colony, Chittorgarh. On receiving this return of the petitioner, a notice dated 24.05.2016 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was served to him seeking further information with regard to certain points in connection with return of income submitted on 09.05.2016. The petitioner was also required to appear before the ITO, Chittorgarh an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nual Year 2013-14. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein, the submissions made by the petitioner have been controverted It has been asserted that the claim of loss towards Long Term Capital gains set out in the previous return of the petitioner was found to be incorrect and thus, the re-assessment notice was rightly issued. A particular instance has been given that claim for expenses on account of construction of boundary wall on the land in question is contradicted by the valuation made by the Sub- Registrar in the sale deed. 4. Shri Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Priyansh Arora, Advocate representing the petitioner, placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Limited reported in (2010)2 SCC 723 and urged that reopening of assessment cannot be undertaken on mere change of opinion. Shr Balia further submitted that the reasons for re-assessment which have been assigned by the respondents in the communication dated 19.06.2021 are without any foundation. In this letter itself, at para No.4, it has been mentioned that "the tool of 360 degree maintained with ITBA portal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the petitioner in the return filed for the Assessment Year 2016-17 which could justify reopening of the proceedings beyond four years by taking recourse to the proviso under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. At this stage, we would like to mention that in the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (Annexure-5) dated 30.03.2021, there is not a whisper that the petitioner made non-disclosure or untrue disclosure of material facts in the return filed for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The relevant extracts of the letter of reasons (Annexure-8) dated 19.06.2021 are reproduced herein below for ready reference: "1. The assessee is an individual and filed his ITR on 08.04.2016 u/s 148 for the A. Y.2013-14 at Total Income of Rs.45000/-. The assessment u/s 147 of the Act had been completed on 26.04.2017 at Total Income Of Rs. 1,04,591/- 2. On perusal of assessment records, during the year under consideration, the assessee sold immovable property being land to Shri Mohd. Sher Khan for total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-. The assessee claimed index cost of purchase, index cost of conversion and index cost of improvement etc., on the said tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above in preceding Paras. I have carefully considered the assessment records containing the submission made by the assessee in response to various notices issued during the assessment proceeding. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary from his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the above foregoing facts, I have reasons to believe that income of Rs.28,70,823/- has escaped from assessment within the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act 1961. The provisions of clause (c) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
