TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the Assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12. 3 Briefly, the facts leading to this Petition are as under: (i) The Petitioner held 10% shares in one M/s. Samuel Dracup and Sons India Private Limited (the Limited Company) . (ii) On 18th October, 2010, the Limited Company decided to voluntarily wind up and liquidate its business. This by the Limited Company passing resolution at the General Body Meeting of its share holders. It was resolved that the assets (including immovable property) remaining after paying of the liabilities, would be distributed between its share holders in proportion to their share holding. (iii) Pursuant to the above, on 27th December, 2010, the Limited Compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 17.12.2012. The assessee is having income from Salary and income from other Sources. 2. Information has been received from the ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vide letter dated 27.12.2013 that during the course of assessment proceedings of the company M/s. Samuel Dracup & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd., (PAN: AAHCS6649D) for A.Y. 201112, it was noticed that the assessee company was liquidated by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Consequently, the assets in the hands on company were transferred to the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders in the ratio of their holdings. One of the shareholders Ms. Ankita Amit Choksey, PAN: AFXPC9692J is assessed to tax with this charge and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome was only processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 of Section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." (vii) On 5th October, 2018, the Petitioner filed its objection to the impugned reopening notice and the reasons in support thereof. In particular, the Petitioner pointed out that the reasons in support of the impugned notice erroneously proceed on the basis that the Petitioner received a consideration of Rs. 3.79 Crores for the sale of the said flat and that this fact was not disclosed. In fact, it was pointed out in the objection that the said flat had not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue and supporting the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2018, adopts the reasoning of the order dated 18th October, 2018 i.e. there was no scrutiny assessment. Thus, no occasion to examine the claim made by the Petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that at this stage, the Court should not interdict the reassessment proceedings. This, if the claim of the Petitioner is correct, the same would be accepted in the reassessment order and there would be no cause for grievance. 6. It is a settled position in law that the Assessing Officer acquires jurisdiction to issue a reopening notice only when he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. This basic condition precedent is....