Court stays proceedings reopening assessment for AY 2012-13 due to property value discrepancies

The court granted ad-interim relief by staying further proceedings related to the reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 based on discrepancies in property purchase value. The court issued a Notice returnable on 10th December 2019 and permitted direct service of the order for compliance, effectively halting the proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues: Reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 based on discrepancies in property purchase value; Jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act; Validity of notice under section 148

In this case, the petitioner's counsel argued that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13 were flawed. The petitioner contended that the assessment could only be reopened against the firm M/s. Akshar Associates and not against the assessee individually. The counsel highlighted discrepancies in the document forming the basis for reopening, pointing out that it did not clearly link the payment to the firm or its partners. The counsel also emphasized that the Assessing Officer had already conducted a scrutiny assessment for the firm in question, accepting their explanation regarding the land purchase.

Moreover, it was argued that the reopening was triggered by a search at K. Star group's premises, which, according to the petitioner, did not provide the Assessing Officer with the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner suggested that if necessary, a notice under section 153C could have been issued instead.

Considering the arguments presented, the court issued a Notice returnable on 10th December 2019 and granted ad-interim relief by staying further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 29.03.2019 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Direct service of the order was permitted for compliance.

---