TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the notice dated 28.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioner, an individual, filed his return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,52,83,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and was accordingly scrutinized. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of original assessment, specific questions regarding the sale of land, value of the sale and deviation from the Jantri value were raised by notice dated 11.09.2014 which was replied vide letters dated 12.01.2015 and 03.03.2015. It was also investigated by the Intelligence and Criminal Inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014. 3.4 The Assessing Officer had also raised specific queries regarding the sale of land vide notice dated 11.09.2014 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee had given the required details in response thereto by a communication dated 12.01.2015 disclosing the details of the transactions. He would submit that it was specifically pointed out that quoting of a wrong PAN was inadvertent typographical error in the document. 3.5 Mr. Soparkar would further submit that no fresh tangible material was available and only the assessment record was looked into. No new material or information came to the notice of the authorities. 3.6 Mr. Soparkar would submit that notices were issued by DIT (I & CI) Officer, as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... includable which the Assessing Officer noticed subsequently on his own investigation, it will never amount to change of opinion. 4.2 Mr. Patel would submit that the transaction itself on the basis of subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction. Mere disclosure at the time of original assessment proceedings need not mean that the disclosure was true and full. 4.3 He would submit that by mentioning an incorrect 'PAN' in the sale deed, it is apparent that there was a deliberate attempt of the petitioner to keep herself out of the purview of the income tax department's verification. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be apt to refer to the copy of the reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is engaged in the business of trading in land. That the land in question was held by the petitioner as stock-in-trade. The income that had arisen to the petitioner on this transaction was in the nature of income from business and profession. The assessee had duly got her books of account audited under Section 44AB. The land was treated as stock-in-trade and hence, jantri rates are not applicable in case of business transactions entered into by the assessee. It was specifically pointed out that in view of the above, the land was not subject to capital gain and jantri value is inapplicable. It was therefore also submitted that Section 50(C) of the Act could not have been applied. 5.2 In other words, when specific queries were made regardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these conflicting interests, if we revert back to central issue in debate, it can hardly be disputed that once the Assessing Officer notices a certain claim made by the assessee in the return filed, has some doubt about eligibility of such a claim and therefore, raises queries, extracts response from the assessee, thereafter in what manner such claim should be treated in the final order of assessment, is an issue on which the assessee would have no control whatsoever. Whether the Assessing Officer allows such a claim, rejects such a claim or partially allows and partially rejects the claim, are all options available with the Assessing Officer, over which the assessee beyond trying to persuade the Assessing Officer, would have no control wha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... means he was convinced about the validity of the claim. His formation of opinion is thus complete. Merely because he chooses not to assign his reasons in the assessment order would not alter this position. It may be a non-reasoned order but not of acceptance of a claim without formation of opinion. Any other view would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer. 43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in a situation where the Assessing Officer during scrutiny assessment, notices a claim of exemption, deduction or such like made by the assessee, having some prima facie doubt raises queries, asking the assessee to satisfy him with respect to such a claim and thereafter, does not make any addition in the final order of assessm....