TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"] by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-2007, which is beyond the period of four years from the relevant assessment year, alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax as escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act on the part of the assessee not disclosing the true and correct facts. 2. The original assessment for AY 2006-2007 was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act which was framed and finalized as far back as on 13th December 2007. Necessary particulars/queries were asked before framing the scrutiny assessment; including the flats sold by the assessee and the gross profit earned by the assessee, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o believe that by reason of omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material relevant for the assessment, the income of Rs. 22,94,561/= of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T Act, for A.Y 2006-2007." 2.2 That, the assessee raised objections against the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It was submitted that on the basis of the observations made in the subsequent assessment years with respect to the flats sold in the subsequent years, the finalized scrutiny assessment cannot be reopened. It was submitted that the entire issue was gone into by the Assessing Officer while framing the scrutiny assessment. It was submitted that even the basis on which the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.O to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2006-2007 on the assumption and presumption that even with respect to the flats sold in the year 2006-2007, the assessee must have taken on-money. 3.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate Shri Divatia that as such, the entire issue with respect to the flats sold in AY 2006-2007 was gone into by the Assessing Officer, while framing the scrutiny assessment, and therefore, the subsequent reopening can be said to be a change of opinion by the subsequent/another Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. It is submitted that there was no nondisclosure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the true and correct facts. It is, therefore, submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment due to non disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee, there cannot be any reopening of the assessment. 6.1 It is also required to be noted that at the time of finalizing scrutiny assessment for AY 2006-07, a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer with respect to difference in the price at which the flats No. 103 and 403 and other flats viz. Flat Nos. 203, 303 & 503 and the same was ensured by the assessee. Therefore, a detailed inquiry was made with respect to the price at which these flats were sold in the relevant assessment year. Hence, the subsequent reopening can be said to be on change of opinion by another Assessing Officer, and therefore, the same is not permissible. 7. From the material available o....