High Court quashes reassessment notice for lack of valid grounds. Petitioner's contentions accepted on capital gains exemption.

The High Court quashed the notice for reassessment as the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The petitioner's contentions on the exemption of long-term capital gains under Section 10(38) and the inclusion of such gains in the book profit under Section 115JB were accepted. The objections raised were deemed invalid, and the reassessment was unjustified.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice for reopening the assessment.
2. Exemption of long-term capital gains from tax under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Assessment of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
4. The difference in the sale consideration amount.
5. Non-disclosure of the receipt in the return of income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice for reopening the assessment:
The petitioner challenged the notice of reopening dated 24.3.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The return filed by the petitioner was accepted without scrutiny under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on information that M/s. Savoy Finance and Investments Pvt Ltd, which amalgamated with the petitioner, had sold shares worth Rs. 322.36 Crores and had not filed a return for AY 2011-12. The petitioner contended that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, as the gain from the sale of shares was exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The High Court noted that even though the return was accepted without scrutiny, the Assessing Officer must have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's reasons lacked validity and quashed the notice for reassessment.

2. Exemption of long-term capital gains from tax under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the shares of M/s. Piramal Healthcare Ltd were held for more than 12 months and sold through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid, thus qualifying for exemption under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer initially did not address this contention but later conceded that the shares were held for more than 12 months. The High Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment based on fishing or rowing inquiries when the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income. Therefore, the exemption under Section 10(38) was valid.

3. Assessment of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act:
The Assessing Officer contended that the long-term capital gains should be included in the book profit for calculating tax under Section 115JB. The High Court noted that the petitioner had included the profit from the sale of shares in its computation of book profit. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. CIT, which held that the Assessing Officer cannot recompute the profit in the Profit & Loss Account while determining book profit under Section 115JB. Therefore, the inclusion of long-term capital gains in the book profit was correctly done by the petitioner, and there was no escapement of income.

4. The difference in the sale consideration amount:
The Assessing Officer pointed out a minor difference of Rs. 46.16 Lakhs between the transaction amount of Rs. 322.36 Crores and the amount reflected in the statement filed by the petitioner. The High Court clarified that this difference represented the brokerage component and had no impact on the taxability of the income. Thus, this objection was not valid for reopening the assessment.

5. Non-disclosure of the receipt in the return of income:
The Assessing Officer argued that the non-disclosure of the receipt in the return amounted to escapement of income chargeable to tax. The High Court held that mere non-disclosure of the receipt does not automatically imply escapement of income. If the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, reopening the assessment based on non-disclosure alone is not justified. The Court found that the petitioner had disclosed the transaction in the computation of income filed along with the return, and there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the notice for reassessment, holding that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner's contentions regarding the exemption of long-term capital gains under Section 10(38) and the inclusion of such gains in the book profit under Section 115JB were upheld. The objections raised by the Assessing Officer were found to be invalid, and the reopening of the assessment was deemed unjustified.

---