TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profit of Rs. 81,39,72,744/- was offered for taxation under Section 115JB of the Act. The original assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining total income at Rs. 1,09,46,13,093/- under the normal provisions of the Act, before the set off of brought forward losses and book profit under Section 115JB was determined at Rs. 87,04,67,495/-. Reassessment proceedings were completed in this case by passing Order under Section 143(3) read with 147 on 17th December, 2012, determining total income at Rs. 1,11,75,54,969/- which was reduced to NIL after setting off of brought forward losses. After, original proceedings under Section 143(3) was completed, Petitioner's case was reopened under Section 147 read with 148 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit on sale of land at Vatra, Ahmedabad and Recreation ground TDR, Lalbaug. However, the gain on these transactions have not been offered as income under any other head of income. This failure by the assessee company has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs. 2,40,53,664/-. Further, the assessee company has shown ground rent of Rs. 1.28 crores offered under the income from other sources, which should have been taxed as income from House Property. Further, no details of expenses debited to P & L Account on this account have been provided by the assessee company, which were required to be disallowed. Failure to do so has resulted into under-assessment of total income. xxx " 2] As regards, second issue, i.e., gain on sale of lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income under Section 139 of the Act, Petitioner cannot be stated to have not disclosed material facts. Petitioner having filed balance-sheet alongwith computation of income with its annual returns, there was nothing more to disclose and a person cannot be said to have omitted to disclose or failed to disclose when he had no knowledge. This Court in paragraph 14 of Kalpataru Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai (2021) 132 taxmann.com 212 (Bombay), has observed as under : "14. Therefore, though it is correct that explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act says mere production of books of accounts or other documents are not enough, and the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....htly stated that reasons do not indicate anywhere that there has been failure to disclose. Use of expression "... it is quite clear that assessee company has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment....." is only a bald statement used to get out of the restrictions imposed in Section 147 of the Act. 7] Mr. Pinto relied upon a judgment of this Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (2) (2015) 55 taxmann.com 59 (Bombay) to submit that even if the reason for reopening does not specifically state that there was any failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, it wil....