Bombay High Court
Sprit Infrapower And Multiventures ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 5 December, 2019
Author: Nitin Jamdar
Bench: M.S. Sanklecha, Nitin Jamdar
Uday S. Jagtap 3188-19-WP-904=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3188 OF 2019
Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner
v/s.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax
Circle 8(2)(2) & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Madhur Agarwal a/w Mr. Jay Bhansali for the petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 5 th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C.
1. At the very outset, Mr. Agarwal, seeks to amend the petition as one of the pages of the balance sheet which is annexed at Exh.F to the petition has been omitted to be annexed. The amendment as sought is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re- verification dispensed with. Amended copy to be served upon the respondents within a period of one week from today.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 00:19:31 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 3188-19-WP-904=.doc challenges a Notice dated 29th March, 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice dated 29th March, 2019 seeks to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13.
3. It is the petitioner's contention that the impugned notice has been issued in respect of assessment which was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and being beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is hit by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. This particularly, as there has been no failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. It is also contended that Assessing Officer could have no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the consideration received on sale of shares to the group Companies was fully disclosed. However the contention of the Revenue that it is the market value which has to be taken into account for the purpose of computing capital gains and not the actual consideration received is directly contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v.
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 00:19:31 :::
Uday S. Jagtap 3188-19-WP-904=.doc
George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC). Thus the impugned notice it is submitted is without jurisdiction on both the aforesaid grounds.
4. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contests the above position. However, he seeks time to file affidavit in reply, if necessary.
5. Prima facie, there is some merit in the contention raised by the Petitioner subject of-course to hearing the Respondents. Thus there shall be ad-interim stay to the impugned notice dated 29 th March, 2019.
6. At the request of Mr. Suresh Kumar, Petition is adjourned to 6th February, 2020.
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 00:19:31 :::