SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, ILESH J. VORA, JJ.
Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 3(2)(4) – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 19549-19551 of 2018
Decided on : 06-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Ms Vaibhavi K.Parikh, adv.
For the Respondent: Mrs Kalpanak Raval, adv

The power to reopen a completed assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1961 has been bestowed on the Assessing Officer, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. However, this belief that income has escaped assessment has to be the reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself and cannot be an opinion and/or belief of some other authority. On the basis of the information by itself received from another agency, there cannot be any reassessment proceedings

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 - Civil Application – Assessment – Taxation - Writ-applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the notice - seeking to reopen the writ-applicant's income tax assessment for Assessment Year - Writ-applicant derived income from a partnership firm, salary, capital gains and income from other sources during the Assessment Year 2011-12, i.e. the year under consideration - Writ-applicant along with three other co-owners sold a parcel of agriculture land bearing Revenue Survey, old tenure land admeasuring of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.50, Final Plot situated at village, to two individuals, vide sale-deed for total sale consideration –

Finding of the Court:

We may once again revert back to reasons furnished by Respondent No. 2 for re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act - After referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt and, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of Act. 36. First of all it would be evident from materials on record that Petitioner had disclosed above information to Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings - All related details and information sought for by Assessing Officer were furnished by the petitioner - Several hearings took place in this regard where-after Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment proceedings by passing assessment order under Section 143 (3) of Act - It would appear that Petitioner had disclosed primary facts at its disposal to Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment - He had also explained whatever queries were put by Assessing Officer with regard to primary facts during the hearings - there is no escapement of income chargeable to tax, conditions precedent for resorting to reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act 1961 are not satisfied in the present case –

Result: Writ-application allowed

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ-applications are interrelated, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.19549 of 2018 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the notice dated 28th March 2018 (Annexure-A to the writ-application) issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act 1961') seeking to reopen the writ-applicant's income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on the ground of being illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction.

4. The facts giving rise to this writ-application may be summarised as under :

5. The writ-applicant derived income from a partnership firm, salary, capital gains and income from other sources during the Assessment Year 2011-12, i.e. the year under consideration.

6. It appears from the materials on record that the writ-applicant along with three other co-owners (writ-applicants of the connected writ-applications) sold a parcel of agriculture land bearing Revenue Survey No.203/2, Khata No.2367, old tenure land admeasuring 7000 sq.yards of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.50, Final Plot No.68, situated at village Katargam, Surat, to two individuals, namely, Ankitkumar Gagjibhai Koshiya and Swintubhai Arvindbhai Mavani, vide the sale-deed dated 29th March 2011 for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,46,33,000=00.

7. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the sale consideration was received by cheque. The details as to the share holdings of all the four co-owners of the land in question are as follows :

Name

Share

Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola (Petitioner)

1/6th

Vijaybhai Dharamshibhai Narola

1/6th

Jerambhai Bhikhabhai Khokariya

1/3rd

Ambalal Laljibhai Patel

1/3rd

8. The writ-applicant filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 29th December 2011 declaring the total income at Rs.6,67,350=00, which included the long-term capital gain of Rs.22,48,496=00 arising on account of sale of the land in question.

9. The case of the writ-applicant for the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny and various details were called for by the then Assessing Officer and the same were duly furnished by the writ-applicant from time to time.

10. It is the case of the writ-applicant that he had furnished a declaration in writing at the stage of the original assessment, whereby it was pointed out that he himself along with three other co-owners had sold the land in question. The writ-applicant also furnished the purchase-deed as well as the sale-deed with respect to the land in question.

11. Upon due examination of all the relevant aspects of the matter, the then Assessing Officer chose not to make any addition in respect of the capital gains arising on account of the sale of the land in question while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act 1961 vide order dated 31st December 2013.

12. It appears that after a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 28th March 2018 under Section 148 of the Act 1961 for the purpose of reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration.

13. The reasons assigned for reopening of the assessment are as under :

    “In the case of assessee, a piece of information was received from the DCIT, CC-4, Surat, regarding that a search and survey operation was carried at the residential and business premises in the case of K.Star Group on 17.08.2016. During the course of search and survey, it was found that the M/s. K. Star Corporation was purchased land amounting to Rs.1,46,33,000/-, sit

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top