TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order of direction to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 31.3.2014 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the respondent herein for the AY 2008-2009. It is also further prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent herein dated 10.10.2014 rejecting the objections to assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 for the AY 2008-2009. 3. That the petitioner filed original return of income for AY 2008-2009 on 26.9.2008 declaring total loss at Rs. 4,57,137/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice under section 143(2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property at Rs. 1,01,77,400/- less indexed cost of property as per the return of income at Rs. 93,98,488/- and considered the long term capital at Rs. 7,78,912/- and therefore, considered the total income at Rs. 1,97,560/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order. It appears that thereafter, after a period of four years from the date of assessment, the Assessing Officer served a notice u/s 147 of the Act upon the assessee for AY 2008-2009 and reopening the assessment proceedings beyond the period of four years. At at the instance of the assessee, the Assessing Officer served the reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, which reads as under: 1 Name & address of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer after verifying all the documents, accepted the fair market value in place of original cost. It was the case of the assessee that as the assessee disclosed all material facts fully and truly, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147/148 after the period of expiry of four years was not permissible. That by order dated 10.10.2014, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections against the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment for AY 2008-2009 and has decided to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Deepak Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the reopeni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition. It is submitted that as such, the assessee did not file the revised return of income and only submitted the revised computation of income claiming the indexed cost of property at Rs. 93,98,488/-. It is submitted that while filing the original return of income, the assessee claimed the indexed cost of property at Rs. 38,57,137/-. It is submitted that in absence of any revised return of income claiming the indexed cost of the property at Rs. 93,98,488/-, the indexed cost of the property was required to be considered at Rs. 38,57,137/-. It is submitted that despite the above, the Assessing Officer considered the revised computation of income and considered the indexed cost of the property at Rs. 93,98,488/-. It is submitted that ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year, initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 would not be permissible. In the present case, it is required to be noted that during the original assessment proceedings, the assessee did claim the indexed cost of property at Rs. 93,98,488/- may be without filing any revised return of income and by submitting only revised computation of income. However, the same came to be considered by the Assessing Officer and while computing the long term capital gain, the Assessing Officer considered the indexed cost of property of Rs.Rs.93,98,488/- as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all materi....