JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - With the consent of the parties, this Petition which challenges a reopening notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is being taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a notice dated 27th March, 2018 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the Assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12.

3. Briefly, the facts leading to this Petition are as under:

(i) The Petitioner held 10% shares in one M/s. Samuel Dracup and Sons India Private Limited (the Limited Company) .

(ii) On 18th October, 2010, the Limited Company decided to voluntarily wind up and liquidate its business. This by the Limited Company passing resolution at the General Body Meeting of its share holders. It was resolved that the assets (including immovable property) remaining after paying of the liabilities, would be distributed between its share holders in proportion to their share holding.

(iii) Pursuant to the above, on 27th December, 2010, the Limited Company executed a sale deed, transferring the immovable property i.e. a flat in "Geetanjali" situated in Mumbai (said flat) in favour of the Petitioner and her mother - Mrs. Priti Choksey to the extent their shares holding i.e. 10% and 90% in the Limited Company respectively.

(iv) On 30th June, 2011, this Court ordered the dissolution of the Limited Company. This, while indicating the share holding of the Limited Company at 90% in the hands of Ms. Priti Choksey and 10% in the hands of the Petitioner. The above order of dissolution was passed after the Respondent-Revenue gave its no objection to it.

(v) On 30th June, 2011, the Petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12, returning an income of Rs. 6.34 lakhs. In its return of income the Petitioner had disclosed under Section 46 of the Act, the receipt of 10% interest in the said flat received from the company on account of its liquidation i.e. 10% of Rs. 3.79 Crores (being value of flat). This to arrive at her capital gains. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by way of intimation.

(vi) Thereafter on 27th March, 2018, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, seeking to reopen the Assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12. The reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2018 is as under:"

1. In the above case, the assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 6,34,580/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 17.12.2012. The assessee is having income from Salary and income from other Sources.

2. Information has been received from the ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vide letter dated 27.12.2013 that during the course of assessment proceedings of the company M/s. Samuel Dracup & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd., (PAN: AAHCS6649D) for A.Y. 2011-12, it was noticed that the assessee company was liquidated by the order of Hon''ble Bombay High Court. Consequently, the assets in the hands on company were transferred to the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey, PAN: AFXPC9692J is assessed to tax with this charge and the consideration arising out of liquidation of the assets is charged in the hands of the assessee Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey.

3. On analysis of the information received and on the verification of the ITS details from ITD system, it is revealed that the assessee Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey has received consideration to the tune of Rs. 3,79,63,000/- from the sale of immovable property of the company M/s. Samuel Dracup and Sons Pvt Ltd. The same was not offered for tax and not reflected in the books of account. The nature/ source of the same transactions remained unverified.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstanc