TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... objections to re-open. 2. For the Assessment Year 2012-13 petitioner had filed returns on 30th August, 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,87,250/-. The return was initially processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was made on 28th March, 2015. 3. Petitioner received a notice dated 31st March, 2019 under Section 148 of the Act which is impugned in this petition, where it is stated that there were reasons to believe that petitioner's income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2012-13 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. It is also stated that the notice is issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Principal Commissioner of Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the entire basis why the officer felt that there were reasons to believe that petitioner's income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2012- 13 has escaped assessment is that in the complaint that petitioner filed with Maharashtra RERA, he has admitted that he had purchased flat for consideration of Rs. 5,21,00,000/-, whereas the documents filed with the department only indicates consideration of Rs. 2.10 Crores. Therefore, there is escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 3.11 Crores. This is the whole and sole basis for re-opening the assessment. 5. Petitioner in response to the notice dated 31st March, 2019 filed returns in the prescribed form and also filed his objections on 4th July, 2019. In the objections, petitioner has raised various g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal complaint. We have to note that petitioner had applied to the Income Tax Authorities under the Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to find out the basis of information that Assessing Officer had received and in the order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, to a query raised by petitioner as to whether the verification of the complaint was done by ACIT 24(1), it is stated negative in reference of authenticity as per case records. We have to note that the order under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act has also been passed by the same Circle 24(1) which has proposed to reopen petitioner's assessment. In our view, the Assessing Officer had enough time to find the veracity or authenticity of the complaint if he had any doubt and he could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or add to it or improve upon it. If the Revenue can do so, if permissible in law and in accordance with law, Revenue may do what it is adviced and of course petitioner may raise whatever objections he has. We repeat we have not expressed any opinion on this. 8. One more point which we find strange is in the affidavit in reply filed through one Mr. Milind Jagtap, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai affirmed on 7th August, 2020, it is stated in paragraph no.7 that the assessee during the course of re-assessment proceedings had enough opportunity to produce the copy of amended complaint made before the Maha RERA Authorities and the assessment proceedings would have been finalized by taking cognizance of the same. How....