TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return on 30.09.2008 admitting a total income of Rs. 38,37,69,710/-. The return filed by the petitioner was subjected to scrutiny pursuant to a notice under Section 142 (1) dated 27.08.2009. The petitioner was asked to submit an explanation including the details of loans and computation statement of profit on sale of land shown in the profit and loss account to the tune of Rs. 38,29,33,402/-. Ext.P1 is the notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply to the said notice, enclosing a copy of a calculation statement of capital gains, including therein a detailed break up of the figures. The said reply is produced as Ext.P2. Inasmuch as the Department was not satisfied with the said explanation of the petitioner, a further n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the cost of construction of 13.83 acres of land. Out of this 13.83 acres of land, 5.344 acres of land was sold on 5.6.2007. In the computation of cost of acquisition of land for the purpose of calculation of capital gains, there is an under assessment being the difference in interest liability on sold land." The petitioner was informed of the said reasons through Ext.P8 communication. The petitioner, thereafter, filed detailed objections to the said notice by Ext.P9 communication dated 15.07.2015. The said objection of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the 1st respondent, who proposed to go ahead with the re-assessment proceedings pursuant to the notice already issued to the petitioner under Section 148. It is at this stage tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner only subsequently through Ext.P8 communication. It is stated that even the reasons stated in Ext.P8 are vague, and hence, the entire proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner for reassessment under Section 147 have necessarily to be quashed. As regards the reasons stated in Ext.P8 communication, which have been extracted in an earlier portion in of this judgment, it is stated that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting the figure of Rs. 18,11,18,977/- as the total unsecured loans from the share holders. It is pointed out that the aforesaid amount was taken by the Assessing Officer from the balance sheet of the Company, and a perusal of the said balance sheet, which was available with the Department, would clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessary permission from the Commissioner of Income Tax had not been obtained as contemplated in Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the respondents would rely on Ext.R1(c) and R1(d) documents, which suggest that the notice under Section 148 was issued only after getting the necessary approval from the Commissioner of the Income Tax. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, going by the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, where an Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts that were necessary for the assessment. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the notice for reassessment was served only after the expiry of the period of four years from the end of the assessment year, and hence, the only issue to be considered, while examining the legality of the impugned notices, is whether the Department has been able to establish that the alleged escapement of income was on account of a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. I note in this connection that the reasons furnished by the Department itself are based on the figure of Rs.....