Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (11) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') and the consequential speaking order passed on 06.01.2022 by the respondent in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer [2003(259 ITR 19)]. 3. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of the case are that the petitioner had sold a property on 30.10.2014 for a total sum of Rs. 45,45,00,000/-, on the same date, the petitioner also purchased a property for a sum of Rs. 20,11,79,447/-, which includes the cost of the land purchased and the immovable property namely a residential house in T.Nagar, Chennai. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent has over-ruled the objection of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 06.01.2022 with the following observations:- "Since the assessee had purchased the property worth of Rs. 23,93,84,000/-(14,961.5 sq.ft @ Rs. 16,000) for a lesser value of Rs. 17,95,38,000/-, the difference of Rs. 5,98,46,000/-, as per Section 56 (2) (vii) of the IT Act, has escaped assessment. The assessee vide his objection dated 11.10.2021 has contended that all material in connection with the purchase of property was made available during the original assessment proceeding to the assessing officer. However from records, it is noticed that the assessee has not declared correct value of the property as discussed above in his return of income as well as du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Registrar who is the Authority specified therein competent to confirm the guideline value. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to a letter/certificate issued by the Sub-Registar of Thyagaraya Nagar confirming that the document was registered at Rs. 12,000/- Per. Sq. Ft. for the land mentioned in the special document namely Doc.No.2625 of 2014. 10. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the issue is also answered against the respondent as the impugned proceedings are inspired from change of opinion. In this case, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)]. It is therefore, submitted t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period for re-opening the assessment for alleged failure on the part of the assessee to disclose a material document for completing the assessment is not relevant. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the assessment that was completed on 26.10.2017 itself makes it clear. It is pursuant to a notice dated 19.09.2016 under Section 143 (2) of the Act and was issued for only a limited scrutiny. It is submitted that even the assessment order dated 26.10.2017 clearly adverts to the same and states that the case is selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and therefore, submits that re-opening of the assessment was in order and therefore, the speaking order impugned herein need be interfered with. 16. Having ....