TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessment year 2005-2006 on 18.11.2005 and which was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were thereafter on 19.2.2007 issued notices under Section 147/148 of the Act. On request of the petitioners the reasons for issuing of the notices under Sections 147/148 were supplied and which are as under:- "Reasons for Reopening the Assessment 1. Name of the assessee : Dr. Mrs. Shipra Srivastava 2. PAN No. : AGZPS3647Q 3. Asstt. Year : 2005-06 4. Address : A-13, EHIRC Residential EHIRC, Okhla Road, N. Delhi:-110025 Reasons for Reopening Returns for A.Y. 2005-06 was furnished on 18.11.05 declaring total income of Rs.5,40,990/-. This has been processed u/s 143(1). 1. The assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Act, as the assessee, is occupying accommodation in the hospital premises provided by his employer. The interest claim of the assessee as such is wrong claim either fully or at least partly because the same has to be reduced from the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property. 3. In view of the above facts I have reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax in the case of the assessee as discussed above, has escaped amendment within the meaning of S. 147 of the I.T. Act 1961 for A.Y. 2005-06. 4. Issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. (PREM RAJ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Circle-41, ND" 2. There are therefore two reasons which were given for reopening of the assessment. Firstly, that the petitioners have wrongly val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., New Delhi inasmuch as in fact and reality both the assessees had shifted from this accommodation way back in August 2001 when the petitioners moved into their own accommodation at Shipra Sun City. In fact thereafter the assesses were no longer in Delhi from August 2003 as they were posted by their employers to Raipur, Madhya Pradesh and from where they came to Delhi only on 30.6.2007. The senior counsel contended that it is not understood as to how the officer has taken the EHIRC residential tower address as having been supplied to the assessee as rent free accommodation by his employer as the return did not disclose this as a perquisite, and whereas in fact along with the return a TDS form was filed showing perquisite at Rs. 27,000/- on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccommodation was jointly occupied by wife and the husband." The learned senior counsel therefore further contended that no reasonable man could reach a finding on the basis of TDS form and the return that the assessee was enjoying the perquisite of rent free accommodation from his employer at EHIRC Towers, more so as the same is not new material discovered which was available after the finalization of the return for the assessment year under Section 143(1). We may also note that in the writ petition the petitioners have referred to the correspondence and the questionnaire which was initiated by the officer seeking to make roving and fishing enquiry which has nothing to do with the reasons recorded seeking reopening of the assessment. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him. the annual value of such house or part of the house shall be taken to be nil." The learned senior counsel therefore contended that this was a clear cut case of harassment. 4. The learned counsel for the Revenue has on the other hand supported the reasons for reopening of the assessment for the reasons which have already been recorded and reproduced hereinabove. 5. We are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs. The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, and as reproduced above show that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion, which has been arrived at in vi....