AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06-07 and b) the order dated 12 January 2014 of the Assessing Officer disposing of the petitioner's objection to the reopening of assessment proceeding for assessment year 2006-07. 3) On 27 July 2006, the petitioner filed his return of income disclosing the total income of Rs.7.5 crores. On 28 February 2008, the Assessing Officer by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act assessed the petitioner to Rs.7.06 crores for the assessment year 2006-07. 4) Thereafter, on 22 March 2013 the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice under Section148 of the Act seeking to reassess the petitioner's income for assessment year 2006-07. Thereafter in response to the petitioner's request the Assessing Officer on 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before that date i.e. on 16-12-05. The notice to the shareholders as per Companies Act ought to have been issued 21 days before the Board meeting authorizing buyback of shares. Thus it would be clear that assessee it appears was aware that the company was contemplating buyback of shares @ 251 per share. Thus the assessee has sold shares @ 143 when it appears he was aware that the buyback offer was @ 251. Thus there is suppression in sale price of shares of Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.108 per shares and the value of suppressed sale proceeds of 291420 shares comes to Rs.3,14,73,360. Therefore the A.O. Gravely erred in non taking these suppressed sale receipts of Rs.3,14,73,360. I have reasons to believe that income of Rs.3,14,73,36....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,88,548 143 2 Persistant Systems Ltd. Persistant Systems Ltd. in scheme of Buyback 060106 393580 9,88,92.249 251 On perusal of the chart as above and the facts of this case the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has sold shares in scheme of Buyback on 06012006 @ Rs.251 per share. This share price is therefore the Fair market value of shares as per assessee's own admission. But the assessee has sold the shares of same company to PSPL ESOP Management Trust a Trust of the same company just 20 days before that date i.e. 16-12-2005. The notice to the shareholder as per companies Act ought to have been issued 21 days before the Board meeting authorizing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus the jurisdictional requirement to reopen the assessment is not satisfied. b) The impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is ex facie unsustainable as the underlying basis is to substitute the words "full value of consideration received" by the words "fair value" under Section 48 of the Act. It is under Section 48 of the Act that the capital gains are computed .Therefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable. c) The fact that the petitioner had sold 291420 of shares on 16 December 2005 to PSPL ESOP Management Trust at a price of Rs.143/per share and on 6 January 2006, 393580 shares of Persistent Systems Limited were sold to the company in its scheme of buyback at the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sought to be reopened beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year not only must there be reason to believe on the part of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but there must also be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. There is no allegation either in the reasons for reopening of the assessment or any finding in the impugned order dated 14 January 2014 that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons for reopening as well as the impugned order dated 12 January 2014 proceed on the basis that the petitioner ought ....