TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 Both the writ applicants namely Bankim Chauhan and Dipak Chauhan are the real brothers. They had sold their immovable property valued at Rs. 64,00,000/- on 27.06.2011 by way of the registered sale deed. Both the brothers received equal share and accordingly an amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- credited in their bank accounts. Both the writ applicants filed their return of income on 24.07.2012 for the AY 2012-13 and same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 13.01.2017, the respondent served a letter to both the writ applicants stating that on the basis of Annual Information Report ('AIR' for short), they had received Rs. 64,00,000/-, through the transaction of sale of property, however, no return of income have been filed by them. Both the writ applicants have filed their reply vide letter dated 24.10.2017 inter-alia stating that they had filed their return of income tax on 24.07.2012 and also enclosed copy of return for the perusal of the revenue. On 12.03.2019, the respondent called for the details of the transactions. Pursuant to query dated 12.03.2019, the writ applicants complied with said letter and furnished necessary details with regard to sale transactions, invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an amount of Rs. 1,10,394/- only as capital gain for taxation. However, no documentary proof has been furnished with reference claim of cost of improvement and deduction claimed U/s.54. Therefore, there is escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 20,71,965/as no documentary proof has been submitted with regard to claim of cost of improvement of Rs. 17,11,965/- and deduction u/s. 54 of Rs. 3,60,000/-. 6. In order to explain the transaction, opportunity was accorded by this office to the assessee vide this office letter dated 12.3.2019. However, the assessee has not responded to this opportunity. 7. In view of the above, the assessee's case falls within the explanation 2(b) of the section 147 of the I.T. Act, i.e. "where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return,"As such, I have a reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 20,71,9651/- out of sale proceeds of property as stated above, has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licants. However, now respondent seeks to reopen the assessment on the same set of facts and circumstances without their being any tangible material against the writ applicants. (d) It was submitted that the reasons recorded for re-assessment are too vague and no independent findings are recorded. The Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction only on the basis of AIR without carrying out his independent inquiry and hence, he assumed the jurisdiction only on borrowed satisfaction, which is impermissible in law. (e) In support of submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions : (i) decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 21030 of 2017 dtd 21.03.2018 in case of Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1); (ii) decision reported in (2018) 92 taxmann.com 74 (Gujarat) I cae of Sunrise Education Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption); (iii) decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15475 of 2015 dtd 11.01.2016 in case of Manishkumar Pravinbhai Kiri Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax; (iv) decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 16171 of 2017 in case of V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.02.2017 stating inter-alia that they have offered the long term capital gain for taxation after claiming deduction as per their share in the immovable property. Vide letter dated 12.03.2019, revenue had called for details with regard to claim of cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and claim under Section 54 of the Act and in pursuance of said letter, both the assessee had furnished necessary details vide letter dated 20.03.2019. It is the case of the revenue that on 19.03.2019, the reasons for reopening of the assessment had been recorded, whereas, the reply along with details had been received to their office on 22.03.2019. Under such circumstances, the day when reasons for reopening were recorded, no any details as called for were supplied by both the assessee. 11. After close scrutiny of the correspondence made between the assessee and revenue, we are of the view that the stand of the revenue with regard to non-filing of the necessary particulars are factually incorrect. It appears from the record that after the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, and before filing of the objections against the reasons recorded, both the assessee had furnished necess....