TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to as, "the Act"] by which the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-2006, which is beyond the period of four years from the relevant assessment year, alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax as escaped the 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 2005-2006 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, and thereafter only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son of omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material relevant for the assessment, the income of Rs. 17,87,408/= of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T Act, for A.Y 2005-2006." 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 assessment is reopened ie., ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for A.Y 2005-2006 on the assumption and presumption that even with respect to the flats sold in the year 2005-2006, 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 2005-2006 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 the assessment beyond the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct facts by the assessee, there cannot be any reopening of the assessment. 7. From the material available on record, it appears that with respect to flats sold in AY 2005-2006, as a detailed questionnaire was asked by the Assessing Officer before framing the scrutiny assessment under section 143 [3] of the Act which was supplied by the assessee and only thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed the scrutiny assessment for AY 2005-2006. From the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006, it appears that the same is sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of observations made by Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment for A.Y 2007-2008 with respect to the flats sold during the year under con....