TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) as developer. The petitioner filed a return of income (ROI) for assessment year (AY) 2014-15 on 04.03.2015 admitting a total loss. The return was not taken up for scrutiny. In its return of income for AY 2016-17, the petitioner had returned long term capital gain (LTCG) in regard to the project of joint development. The return of income was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and vide questionnaire under Section 142(1) various details/particulars were sought from the petitioner including copy of annual report, financials (profit and loss accounts and balance sheet with complete schedules) and a computation of Long Term Capital gains (LTCG) along with an explanation in reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... To, DASS MEDIA PVT LTD 26, POES GARDENSi 600086, Tamil Nadu India PAN: AAACD2726M Assessment year: 2014-15 Dated 16/06/2019 Letter No: ITBA/AST/F/17/2019-20/1016023565(1) Sir/Madam/M/s, Subject: Furnishing of reasons for reopening in the case of M/s Dass Media P.Ltd. Ref:1.Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.03.2019 2. Your letter dated 29.03.2019. Kindly refer to the above. The Reasons for reopening the assessment proceedingsu/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Dass Media P. Ltd AY 2014-15 are as follows: "1. The assessee company had entered into a joint Development Agreement with M/s. Bashya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital Gain Rs. 20,11,33,626 3. It was also learnt during the survey that the CMDA approval for the building was obtained in FY 2013-14 itself. Thus it is clear that the incidence of capital gain arose in AY 2014-15 itself. The assessee has offered capital gains in AY. 2016-17 which was subsequently assessed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2018. The assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the above ordre u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act dated 29.12.2018. It is noticed that the assessee company has not offered any capital gain in AY 2014-15 which is the correct year of incidence of capital gain. Therefore, the assessment has to be reopened for AY. 2014-15 and assessed protectively t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2020. The Officer has, at paragraph 8 of counter dated 23.01.2020 in W.P. No.34963 of 2019 expressed regret for proceeding to pass the order of assessment despite interim order dated 17.12.2019. He assigns the blame to a gap in intra-department communication by which order dated 17.12.2019 came to his attention only on 23.12.2019 by which time the impugned order of assessment had been passed, on 20.12.2019. The explanation offered is accepted. Both matters have thus been taken up together. 7. Revenue points out that as the original processing of the ROI was only by way of intimation and no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) had been made, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 is unassailable. It was only when the retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 147, conditional upon an order under Section 143(3) having been passed at the original instance. Since only an intimation under Section 143 (1) has been passed in this case, limitation of six years is, available. (See The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500). 11. Coming to whether a re-assessment may be initiated on protective basis, I see no legal infirmity in the same. Though the assumption of jurisdiction to re-open an assessment must be based on the satisfaction of the officer that income has escaped assessment, such reasoning is not expected to be ironclad even at that preliminary stage. It will suffice that the Officer has a legitimate and reasonable basis to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The issue concerned the nature and source of investment in immovable property. The amount in question was brought to tax in the hands of both the husband and wife, the former substantively and the latter protectively. Both the assessees therein challenged the orders of assessment till the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the wifes' case an additional point taken was that the re-assessment was only by way of change of opinion and was thus unsustainable. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal stating that a protective assessment did not amount to a change of opinion but merely indicated caution on the part of the income tax officer in deciding the question of law. In further appeal, the Court was of the view that the proper approach of....