TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1) Dhule. 2. The petitioner contends that the late Shri Kisanrao Sonuji Karankal had acquired "right to purchase property", an open plot at Kothrud, Pune. Those rights were sold as per the agreement dated January 2, 1995, to one Shri Lalit Amrutlal Shah and Simil Shridhar Deshpande. The petitioner contends that the late Shri Kisan Karankal entered into an agreement of assignment and transfer. An amount of Rs. 5,50,000 was received from time to time by way of part completion and assignment as compensation from M/s. Bilwa Promoters, Pune and other intervening parties. The prospective purchasers committed breach of agreement and failed to perform their part of contract. Ultimately, on October 11, 1995, the petitioner made a total assignment in favour of Lalit Amrutlal Shah and Sunil Shridhar Deshpande for a total consideration of Rs.12,00,000. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a return on November 6, 1996, in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 disclosing income derived from the said memorandum of agreement dated January 2, 1995. According to the petitioner, the competent authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not a ground for the Revenue to have reasons to believe to reopen an assessment. This position in law, according to the learned counsel is not altered even by the 1989 amendments to the provisions of section 148 of the Act. The Revenue, therefore, will have to demonstrate that there was application of mind before initiating proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act In support of this submission, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Smt. Laxmibai A. Wagle v. ITO [1999] 240 ITR 427; [2000] 162 CTR 479 (Bom). In the facts of the case, it is observed that, in judicial scrutiny, the court would be entitled to examine those reasons, but the notice under section 148 is not required to contain the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. (2) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] ; [2002] 174 CTR Delhi 617 [FB]. In this case it is observed that the expression "reason to believe" finds place in the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of section 147 and sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates that before jurisdiction under section 147 is invoked by the Assessing Officer he is to record his reasons for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 616 (SC) ; [1993] 70 Taxman 290. This judgment was cited on the issue of scope of the provisions of sections 147 and 148 of the Act. (2) Union of India v. Priyankan Sharan [2008] 9 SCC 15; [2008] 10 JT 41. In paragraph 19, it is observed that it is well settled principle in law that, the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. (3) Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). In this case, it is observed (page 511 of 291 ITR): "16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word 'reason' in the phrase 'reason to believe' would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso. 18. So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 9. We have perused the judgments cited above, and considered the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Rules and the material placed on record. 10. We have perused the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on January 9, 1998. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), Dhule, while passing the assessment order observed in paragraph 3 that the assessee had sold his right to purchase open plot (NA) at Kothrud, Pune, and copy of the agreement of acquisition of right to purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
