TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.9.2014 (Annexure B) passed by the respondent rejecting the objections of the petitioner and upholding the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for AY 2009-10. 3.0. That the petitionerassessee filed her E return of Income for AY 2009-10 on 25.3.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 9,44,090/- which consisted of property income of Rs. 24,990/- and interest income of Rs. 9,19,100/-. That according to the petitioner, she derived income by way of rent from letting out an immovable property and interest income from deposits placed with State Bank of Saurashtra and bonds with NHAI. That the petitioner also disclosed interest income from deposits with the State Bank of Saurashtra (now SBI) of Rs. 7,65,504/- and the interest income of Rs. 1,53,596/- on NHAI capital gains bonds. That the petitioner also claimed credit for the TDS aggregating to Rs. 2,20,452/- deducted from the aforesaid both interest income. The petitioner also computed NIL taxable capital gain arising on sale of open p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he paragraph of the reasons recorded for reopening was communicated whereas the second paragraph of the reasons recorded was inadvertently not communicated. Therefore, the second paragraph of the reasons recorded also came to be communicated to the assessee by the letter dated 13.6.2014. That the assessee by letter dated 1.8.2014 once again objected to reopening of the assessment and also the socalled omission to communicate the second para of reasons recorded. That thereafter, the respondent has passed the order on 22.09.2014 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner assessee to the reopening of the assessment. 3.4. Hence, petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 4.0. Shri S.N.Divatia, learned advocate for the petitionerassessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned reassessment proceedings / opening of the reassessment under Section 147 of the Act is absolutely illegal, most arbitrary and invalid. It is submitted that none of the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons recorded by the respondent vide letter dated 13.6.2014 appears to be suspicious. It is submitted that very fact that the said communication was given after about 1 month from filing the objections to the reopening by the petitioner, the same does not inspire any confidence. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Divatia, learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned notice of reopening of the assessment is bad in law and without jurisdiction also on account of fact that reasons did not indicate whether any income had actually escaped assessment. It is submitted that such reasons could not be said to be valid as the reopening was initiated to make inquiries and required further verification. In support of above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpa vs. S.P.Chaliha & Ors reported in (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC) as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shankarlal Nagji & Co & ors vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 90(Guj). It is submitted that in the case of Chhugamal Rajpa (supra) the AO had while recorded the reasons mentioned "hence proper investigation regarding these loans ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. When the petitioner assessee asked the reasons recorded vide communication dated 29.4.2014 the assessee was served with following reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. "As per AIR information, the assessee has purchased bonds / debenture of Rs. 50,00,000/- during the FY 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10. Also the assessee has claimed high value of refund for AY 2009-10 which requires to be verified." 6.1. However, after the petitionerassessee submitted the objections against the aforesaid reasons recorded petitioner was communicated vide communication 29.4.2014 that "only the first paragraph of the reasons recorded" for reopening the assessment was communicated, however "second paragraph of the reasons recorded" was inadvertently not communicated in the said letter. Therefore, second paragraph of the reasons recorded as mentioned in the communication dated 13.6.2014 is as under: "Considering the facts of the case, I have reason to believe that assessee's income to the extent of investment in bonds / debentures has escaped assessment for AY 200910, within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, this is a fit case to initi....