TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ana K. Raval for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 16.03.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for A.Y.2013-14. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of 'Nil'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d advocate for the respondent was directed to pass an order disposing of the objections. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent-Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order disposing of the objection on 05.07.2024 which is placed on record on 09.07.2024. 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar submitted that the petitioner is a developer and has booked the plots of the society under the development agreement and shown the same as a stock-in-trade in the books of accounts. It was pointed out that such booking was done for the year 1995. 8.1 It was further submitted that the petitioner in response to the notice under section 133 (6) as well as objections to the impugned notice for reopening has stated in detail that there cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that admittedly there was a difference of the market value i.e. Jantri rate and the value of registration and therefore, there is an escapement of the income of Rs. 4,06,73,100/- and the Assessing Officer was justified in recording the reasons and issuing notice for reopening. 9.1 It was further submitted that the petitioner has failed to give details in relation to the amounts disclosed in the books of account vis-a-vis the market value of the property and therefore, there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. It was pointed out that the petitioner has admittedly shown the less sale consideration in the return filed as compared to the stamp duty valuation and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 2,77,100/- 7993 25,50,000/- 28,53,237/- 12-Dec-12 1,68,600/- 6383 23,32,000/- 32,90,288/- 28-Sep-12 1,94,200/- 3470 25,50,000/- 28,53,260/- 01-Jun-12 1,68,600/- 6383 23,32,000/- 39,63,265/- 28-Sep-12 1,94,200/- 5461 46,26,000/- 55,71,429/- 22-Aug-12 2,73,000/- . 3,42,46,000/- 4,06,73,100/- 23,06,900/- The letter u/s. 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued to the assessee company after taking the prior approval from the Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad, vide DIN no. ITBA/COM/F/2019-20/1025447058(1) dated 19/02/2020 for clarification of the transaction value entered in the books of accounts of the assessee company. The assessee company has not responded. The assessee company has failed to give the details ....