TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014 Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for reopening of the assessment. On 9.4.2014, letter was addressed by the Assessee to the respondent demanding reasons. On 2.6.2014, reasons recorded were furnished to the Assessee. On 10.6.214, the Assessee submitted objections against the reasons for resisting the reopening of the assessment. On 19.8.2014, order was passed by the respondent, rejecting the objections for reopening of the assessment. Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr.Divatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. As such, it is an admitted position that the period of four years from the end of the assessment year has expired on the date when the assessment was proposed to be reopened. Therefore, in our view, the case may fall in the proviso (1) to Section 147 of the Act. As per proviso (1) to Section 147 of the Act, assessment can be reopened even after four years if it is found that there was failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. 6. It appears that in the return of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the petitioner submitted detailed letter on various points connected with the return of income tax filed under section 139 of the Act. On 18.11.2010, during the course of regular assessment, in reply to the notice under section 142(1), the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, vide letter, had submitted various documents including the audit report and the details about the salary of the partners. On 28.12.2010, the assessing officer passed a scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and while passing the said order, the survey made on 22.08.2008 and other relevant aspects were considered and the order was passed. 4. On 17.01.2014, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act informing the petitioner that the income has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009 and vide letter dated 01.04.2014, the respondent provided reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. On 17.06.2014, the petitioner filed objections against the reasons and it was contended inter alia that full disclosure was made including the points on the basis of which the assessment is sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be taken under this section (147) after the expiry of the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose full and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the respective assessment year. 8. The aforesaid shows that unless the case falls in the exceptional category of "failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment", the action after the expiry of four years for reopening of the assessment is not permissible. As we are not required to examine other contingencies of failure, we do not deal with the same. 9. As per the learned counsel Mr.Shah for the petitioner, full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant to the reasons which is the ground for reassessment were disclosed before the AO at the time when the scrutiny of the assessment had taken place. He submitted that not only that but the audit report was also produced which included the remuneration to the partners from the disclosed item of Rs. 74,90,834/and during the course of the assessment, thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 49(2) of the Act by gift or 'will', cost of acquisition shall be the date on which the property was acquired or the cost of the previous owner of the property is to be considered. We may, for ready reference, refer to the observations made by this Court in the above referred decision at paragraphs 4 to 9 as under:- 4. We are however, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) as well as Tribunal committed no error. We may recall that in the present case, since the assessee had acquired the property through gift, in normal understanding of law, there would be no cost of acquisition attached to such property. Section 49 of the Act, however, makes a deeming provision for computing the cost of acquisition in such cases. Relevant portion of section 49 reads as under : "49. Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition: (1) Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee- xxx (ii) under a gift or will; xxxx the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the total cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981, whichever is later. In simple words, therefore for an asset acquired prior to 1.4.1981 the indexed cost of acquisition would be the cost of acquisition multiplied by the ratio of the Cost Inflation Index in the year in which assessee's asset is transferred to the Cost of Inflation Index for the year beginning on 1.4.1981. It was therefore, that the Tribunal in our opinion correctly held that the indexed cost of acquisition shall have to be worked out with reference to 1.4.1981 since in the present case the asset was acquired by the previous owner of the property. Learned counsel for the Revenue however, submitted that such interpretation would fail to take into account the expression "Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee". In his opinion the "assessee" referred to under such expression would be the present assessee and not the previous owner. In our opinion, such interpretation cannot be accepted. We say so for the following reasons. Firstly, by virtue of a deeming fiction provided in sub-section(1....