TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2008-09. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual who is deriving salary income and Long Term Capital Gain. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee field its original Return of Income on 19-06-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,92,640/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 25-03-2011. It is thereafter the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2015 recording the reasons as follows: "As per AIR information, the assessee has sold immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- during F.Y. 2007-08. The assessee was requested to furnish nece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded carry incorrect facts. Therefore the reassessment order is to be held as null and void. Further in the reasons recorded, the AO Stated that the assessee has not filed details and documents relating to the sale of immovable property and also not disclosed income from capital gain in his Return of Income filed for the Assessment Year 2008-09. But however on perusal of the original Return of Income filed by the assessee, he declared the Long Term Capital loss of Rs. 4,87,235/- reflecting under Schedule C G of the Return. Therefore the formation belief of the Assessing Officer that the income has escaped assessment is factually incorrect. Thus the very foundation of reopening itself is bad in law and relied upon Gujarat High Court Judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t facts, hence the same being illegal and bad in law requires to be cancelled. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in passing an Ex-Parte order u/s.144 of the Act hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised before him with respect to the action of the assessing officer in not granting the exemption claimed by the appellant u/s.54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the purchase of new residential house out of long term capital gain on sale of old residential house. 5. Ld. Counsel Shri Aseem L. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and requested to uphold the same. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and case laws filed by the assessee. It is seen from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment that the assessee has not shown any capital gain from the sale of immovable property in his Return of Income filed for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Therefore the assessment is reopened for escapement of income. Whereas it can be seen from the original Return of Income filed by the assessee on 16-09-2009, the assessee declared his salary income and computation of capital loss of Rs. 4,87,235/- and working of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35,337-38 (Guj) "Where the initiation of reassessment proceedings has been made on the ground that return had not been filed and that a certain income had not been disclosed and the I material on record had showed that return had in fact been filed and the Revenue was not sure whether such income pertained to the year concerned or any other year, initiation has not been upheld" b) Vijay Harishchandra Patel v/s ITO, Ward-(3)(5), SCA No. 16171 of 2017(Guj HC) "As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, the very basis for reopening the assessment is that the petitioner had not filed any return of income disclosing such sale of the immovable property valued at Rs. 40,00,000/-. The record of the case sh....