TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Petitioner is challenging notice dated 31/03/2019 issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act'), notice dated 10/06/2019 under Section 143(2) of the said Act, notice dated 13/11/2019 under Section 142(1) of the said Act, communications dated 13/11/2019 rejecting objections of Petitioner and sanction granted under Section 151 of the said Act by Respondent No.3. 3. Petitioner who is a real estate developer, offered his income on the basis of project completion method up to AY 2011-12. On 10/12/2012, a survey under Section 133A of the said Act was conducted at the premises of Petitioner wherein Respondent No.2 accepted offer of Petitioner to offer income @ 9% of incremental work-in-progr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Petitioner, Respondent No.2 formed his opinion on the basis of ITS data wherein flats amounting to Rs. 60,02,95,478/- appeared to have been sold but it was alleged that Petitioner had not shown any turnover during the year at the time of filing of original returns or at the time of filing of revised returns and therefore, Petitioner had not disclosed turnover of Rs. 60,02,95,478/- resulting into escapement of income within the meaning of clause (b) of Explanation 2 of Section 147 of the said Act. 8. Petitioner, by letter dated 22/07/2019, objected to reopening of assessment and 'reason to believe' recorded for re-opening of assessment. Respondent No.2, on 13/11/2019, rejected the objections / request of Petitioner to drop re-as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion. 12. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for Respondents, supported the impugned action of re-assessment proceedings by submitting that the reasons for re-opening of assessment at page 87 to 89 of the Petition are self-explanatory. He submitted that the Assessing Officer, in the original assessment, was not justified in accepting offer of income of Petitioner @ 9% incremental work-in-progress. He, therefore, submitted that Petitioner will have opportunity to present his case in detail before Respondent No.2 and interference at this stage is not necessary. 13. On careful scrutiny of the documents placed on record, particularly reply at Exh.B dated 10/02/2015 along with its annexures giving details in respect of data pertaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment. It is also held that when on consideration of the material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment based on the very same material and to take another view. 15. In the facts of the present case, in view of reply filed by Petitioner (Exh.B), it is clear that the Assessing Officer was aware of the issue of AIR and ITS data. Once the Assessing Officer had applied his mind in regular assessment proceeding of Petitioner having sold 29 flats, it is not open for Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment in absence of material to show escapement of income. This Court, in Aroni Commercial Limited Vs. Dy. CIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 and in Marico ....