2014 (4) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hah, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Km Parikh, Adv. JUDGMENT (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. Petitioner has challenged notice for reopening dated 25.3.2014 as at Annexure-H to the petition in the following factual backgrounds:- 2. The petitioner as an individual, for the assessment year 2008-09 filed his return of income on 3.3.2009 showing total income of Rs.4,43,830/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from salary, from house property, profit from the firm as also capital gain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen for which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recored by the assessing officer for issuing such notice which reasons read as under:- "In this case,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der section 54 of the Act and not 54E. The assessing officer, therefore, in the reasons recorded has made wrong reference to the said section. 5. The objections of the petitioner were disposed of by the assessing officer on 16.12.2013. In such order he did not deal with the petitioner's pointed contention that his claim for exemption from payment of capital gain fell under section 54 and not 54....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is now pointed out that reference to section 54E is mere typographical error and the intention was to refer to section 54 of the Act, we are of the opinion that such stand is wholly incorrect. Had this been a case of mere typographical error, we would have ignored the mistake and referred to the correct statutory provision. The fact that reference under section 54E was however, not an error is....