TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocates, the matter is taken up for hearing. 5. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are as under:- 5.1 The petitioner filed return of income on 31.08.2012 for assessment year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 6,34,76,240/-, which includes the income of Rs. 6,10,06,547/- declared under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' earned from sale of land at Vesu, Surat. Thereafter, the petitioner revised its income tax return on 27.03.2014, wherein the capital gain earned from sale of land was reduced to Rs. 36,21,920/- as against Long Term Capital Gain declared in the original return of income of Rs. 6,10,06,547/-. The aforesaid revision of income declared under the head 'Capital Gain' arose due to revised claim of indexed cost of acquisition from Rs. 16,37,383/- in the original return of income to Rs. 2,64,32,387/- in revised return of income. Additionally, the difference also arose due to fresh claim of indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 3,29,71,193/- in the revised return. The aforesaid return of income was accepted as such and no scrutiny assessment has been made by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, due to impounding of certai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oresaid of land and payment of 'on money' to him and his cash partner in his statement on oath recorded on 28-03- 2013. The detail of cash payments/receipts has reflected in the page BF 1-35 are as under: Sr. No. Date Amount (in Rs.) 1 05/10/2010 1,54,00,000/- 2 12.02.2010/2011 1,24,50,000/- Total 2,78,50,000/- 1 16.06.2010/2011 50,00,000/- 2 16.06.2010/2011 30,00,000/- 3 12.07.2010/2011 24,50,000/- 4 12/10/2011 25,00,000/- 5 18/10/2011 24,00,000/- 6 08/12/2011 20,00,000/- 7 13/12/2011 ----- 15,00,000/- 11,00,000/- Balance to receive Total 4,67,00,000/- Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai in his statement recorded as categorically stated that the calculations and transactions recorded in the impounded documents marked as BF-I-35 page 11 and 12 are the accounts written by him in his own handwriting which are the actual transactions for the land situated at Vesu, Surat. On perusal of the return filed for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12 it is seen that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-13." 5.2 On perusal of the aforesaid reasons, it can be seen that entire reasons were based on documents impounded during the course of survey proceedings conducted at the premises of Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel marked as BF-1/35. In the said reassessment proceedings, the petitioner vide its letter dated 04.03.2015 submitted certain documents, which include the acknowledgment of original return of income and revised return of income along with computations of total income, affidavits of Ravjibhai K. Sutaria and Baldevbhai B. Patel, agreement to sell executed on 16.08.2010 between Ravjibhai K. Sutaria HUF, Parbatbhai J. Golakiya HUF and Baldevbhai B. Patel along with his partner Hiteshbhai H. Savani, copy of Sale Deed in respect of sale of land at Survey No.223, 224 and 225 and copy of pages impounded marked as BS-I/16. 5.3. Thereafter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 21.03.2015 had specifically provided detailed justification with regard to Page 12 of impounded material marked as BF-1/35. The petitioner vide its letter dated 22.03.2015 submitted revised computation of Long Term Capital Gain calculating the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 17,60,086/- as against the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter dated. 26.11.2019 drew attention of the Respondent to the fact that it has not filed the objections by its letter dated 16.11.2019 but it had only asked for certified copy of reasons and other documents as mentioned in that letter. Thereafter, the Respondent issued a detailed show cause notice dated 04.12.2019 and asked the petitioner to submit the response on or before 12.12.2019. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed objection vide its letter dated 14.12.2019. In be said letter, the petitioner mainly contended as follow:- ● The approvals are technically illegal as they were signed without putting year of signing. ● The case was reopened on the basis of material available on records and on the same facts and documents. ● The reasons recorded are factually incorrect and thus entire assessment is illegal and invalid. ● The reassessment has been made on a mere change of opinion which is impermissible The re-assessment based on re- appraisal of existing material is invalid. ● The assessment has been re-opened beyond a period of four years of a previously scrutinised assessment and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a case where the notice of reopening has been issued beyond a period of four years. It was further submitted that on the basis of the actual analysis Assessing Officer has firmed the reason to believe and the material already on record during the course of regular assessment proceedings and such material cannot be considered relevant material permitting the Assessing Officer to re-examine the entire issue once again from different angle and therefore, it would amount to change of opinion and impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside having been issued without jurisdiction. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Raval for the respondent submitted that the impugned notice has been issued after recording the reasons in which Assessing Officer has categorically held that the issues, which were not examined during the course of the original assessment proceedings are the basis of the reopening and accordingly, the Assessing Officer has firmed reason to believe for the escapement of income for the year under consideration. 11. It was further submitted that the impugned notice could not be issued on account of technical reasons with the income tax business applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comes to a conclusion that original assessment was erroneous, then such facts alone would justify initiation of reassessment proceedings. 15. It was submitted that the disclosures, which prima facie hidden or in the embedded in the records including the books of accounts, which are filed along with the return, which may require deep exercise and deep study to uncover the same and such disclosure cannot be said to be a true and full disclosure of primary facts. It was submitted that in such case, the Assessing Officer can exercise the power under Section 147 of the Act for reopening assessment to unearth escapement of income chargeable to tax. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent- Assessing Officer has acted on direct or circumstantial evidence obtained from the record in juxtaposition to absence of disclosure in the return of income and there is no case for action reopening based on suspicion. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that reopening proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act is on the basis of the facts and figures available with the department and it cannot be said that reopening was merely change of opinion as the issue of ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted in the business premises of Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel wherein various incriminating documents were found and impounded. On perusal of the impounded documents marked as BF-1-35 particularly page 11 and 12 reveals that Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai had entered into land transaction whereby he had invested in cash in the properties being survey No. 223, 224 and 225 at Vesu, Surat. The aforesaid land was in the names of Shri Parvatbhai J. Golakia (HUF) and Shri Rabjibhai K. Sutaria (HUF). The above referred page reflects the summary of land transactions of Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhubhai Patel which indicates receipt of money amounting to Rs. 4,93,42,332/ during the financial year 2010-11 & 2011-12. During the course of survey statement on the oath of Shri Baldevbhai Patel was recorded wherein he stated that BF-1-35 page 11 and 12 is the computation of sale proceeds of Rs. 25,370/-, war of land of the above referred survey plots which were proposed to be sold @ Rs. 14,751/-. Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai has clearly stated in his statement that he along with his partner namely Hitenbhai Himmatbhai Savani were co-sharer in the aforesaid property in cash only and they were having 14.81%....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of cost of acquisition and improvement thereto amounting to Rs. 5,94,03,580/- (26432387 Indexed cost + 32971193 Indexed cost of improvement) and have accordingly arrived at net capital gain of Rs. 36,21,920/- only as against the original net capital gain of Rs. 6,10,06,547/-. It is seen that the assessee has revised its return of income claiming the benefits of undisclosed investment in the property in survey no. 223, 224 and 225 at Vesu, Surat. This property was registered for total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per sale deed. However, as per the impounded document marked as BF 1-35 page no. 6 which was impounded during the course of survey in the business premises of Shri Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel reflects total purchase price of the land at Rs. 3,29,81,000 as against the purchase price of Rs. 20,00,000/-and after adding the cost of expenses total investment has been arrived at Rs. 4,91,60,313/-. The Assessee has in a way admitted the undisclosed investment in the said property and tried to get the benefit of indexation and accordingly tried to reduce the capital gain. Proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act for the relevant assessment year 2007-08 has already been ....