TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,. For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar with Dr. Dhanalakshmi Iyer,. P.C. 1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 15 April 2023 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") alleging that a "notional profit" of Rs. 12.88 crores has escaped assessment in connection with the Financial Year 2015-16. 2. The position taken by the Revenue is based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Year 2015-16 to the extent of the difference between the allotment price of Rs. 13/- and the market price of Rs. 659/-, necessitating re-assessment of the returns filed for that year. 4. On 10 April 2023, the petitioner replied to the notice dated 30 March 2023. The Petitioner asserted that the shares that had been allotted on 17 February 2014, had not been sold at all in 2015-16. Consequently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 12.88 crores based on market price appreciation of KFCL shares is the only ground on which the re-assessment was proposed. Evidently, the shares had not been sold at all during the financial year for any taxable event to have occurred to bring any income from capital gains to tax. 7. We have also gone through the report received by the Revenue from Indian Audit & Account Department, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment. Besides, there is no other ground in the notice dated 30 March 2023 for proposing reassessment. Consequently, the very basis on which the Impugned Order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act, stands undermined. Since the very basis of proposing re-assessment does not exist, as a matter of fact, nothing survives in the proposal to conduct reassessment. 9. In these circumstances, the ....