TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India for Rs.33,55,12,980/- under a settlement agreement. The petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1,31,87,400/- towards lawyers, Chartered Accountants, Escrow Agents etc. for the said transaction. The petitioner filed his return of income for A.Y 2014-15 on 31st July 2014 whereby the proceeds receipt from transfer of equity shares in Cinepolis India was disclosed under the head "Capital Gains'' and claimed deduction of legal expenses under the head "Cost of Improvement", the said return was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. On 11th July 2016 a notice was issued to the petitioner u/s. 142(1) for scrutiny in exercise of power conferred u/s. 143(2) of the Act. By responses dated 23rd August 2013 and 24th August 2013, the petitioner submitted required information and documents with detailed explanation as regards the acquisition and transfer of equity shares in Cinepolis India. The Assessment Officer (AO) accepted the explanation and on being satisfied with the information and documents passed an order accepting the total income u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. On 31st March 2021, the petitioner was issued the impugned notice u/s. 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment AY 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,700/- for AY 2014-15. Assessment has been completed on 8/12/2016 u/s/143(3) determining total income of Rs. 32,78,25,700/-. The CIT(A) Gurgaon wherein it is mentioned that during the course of appellate proceedings in the case of Milan Saini for A.Y. 2014-15 that Shri Deepak Marda and Shri Milan Saini were Directors in them/s Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. It was further seen that both Shree Deepak Marda and Shri Milan Saini received amount of Rs. 33,55,12,980/- each during the year under a settlement agreement. In the case of Shri Milan Saini the appeal has since been decided by the CIT (A), Gurgaon the amount of Rs. 33,55,12,980/- received by Shri Milan Saini has been held to be taxable under the head Income from Salary. Thus amount of Rs.. 33,55,12,980/- received for A.Y. 2014-15 by Shri Deepak Marda the assessee is required to be tax under the head income from Salary. 6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income:- In view of the facts mentioned in para no 2 to 5 above and information as available on record of this office, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax which has escape assessment amounts to or is likely amount to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll of which were relied upon by the respondent no.1. On 6th May 2022, the petitioner filed detailed objections having received all the documents from the respondent no.1 in Mr. Milind Saini's case. In the said response, the petitioner raised grounds that the assessment could not be reopened beyond three years in absence of failure to disclose material facts and also challenged the unilateral from respondent No.1 to respondent no.2 without granting a hearing to the petitioner. Despite the explanation given at the personal hearing as well as detailed objections raised the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated 10th June 2022 holding that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts and therefore, the reopening of assessment for year 2014-15 was warranted. 6. Mr. Naniwadekar learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reopening of the assessment vide impugned notice dated 31st March 2021 is made beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2014-15 without demonstrating any failure on the part of the petitioner, to disclose material facts and consequently is vitiated in terms of the first proviso to section 147. He s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has held : "We also cannot accept submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded on analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147 of the Act. The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 143 or Sub-section (3) of Section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without anything further, the same would amount to giving premium to an authority exercising quasi- judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong." 9. We have no hesitation to hold that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts, nor t....