2022 (1) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctions to the reopening of the assessment. 2. Mr. Porus Kaka submitted that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and without authority of law for want of satisfaction of condition precedent under section 148 of the Act and there was no failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose fully and truly any material fact and, therefore, there can be no reason to believe there was escapement of income from assessment as well. Mr. Kaka also submitted that if one considers the reasons, it is quite clear that it is nothing but change of he opinion, which is not permissible in law. 3. Admittedly, Petitioner had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13, declaring a total income of Rs. 33,93,73,990/- on 29th September, 2012. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in the scheme of arrangement between the Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., (BCCL) and Petitioner under sections 391 & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Real Estate Division of the BCCL was demerged and vested with the assessee company with effect from 1st April, 2011. According to the JAO because the properties which were demerged from BCCL and vested in the Petitioner Company, have not been mutated to the ownership of Petitioner, the transactions cannot be regarded as demerger but transfer of various assets and liabilities undertaken, which attract capital gain. According to the JAO rental income was treated by Petitioner as income from house property and Petitioner claimed deduction on account of municipal taxes paid of Rs. 95.59 lak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inion to commence proceedings for re-assessment. Even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that count the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen the assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings. Where on consideration of the material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to re-open the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that in the reasons for reopening, the Assessing Officer has stated that there was failure to disclose fully and truly material facts and has also relied upon the Explanation- 1 to secti....