Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Niranjan Chimanlal Jani vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 October, 2017

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav

                  C/SCA/18742/2017                                             ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18742 of 2017

         ==========================================================
                    NIRANJAN CHIMANLAL JANI....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
          DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2)....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         DARSHAN R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                     Date : 10/10/2017


                                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The   petitioner   has   challenged   a   notice   of  reopening the assessment which has been issued within  a   period   of   four   years   from   the   end   of   relevant  assessment year, the original assessment having been  framed after scrutiny.  Taking us through the reasons  recorded   by   the   Assessing   Officer,   counsel   for   the  petitioner submitted that the sole ground of capital  gain arising out of sale of Hathijan land was examined  by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny  assessment.     Any   proposed   addition   on   such   ground  would   be   a   change   of   opinion.     Counsel   further  Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 21 23:20:05 IST 2017 C/SCA/18742/2017 ORDER submitted that the notice of reopening has been issued  at   the   behest   of   audit   party   which   is   also  impermissible.  Counsel lastly contended that even the  reason   indicated   by   the   Assessing   Officer   is   not  valid.   The assessee had in the balance­sheet showed  the   expenditure   of   Rs.5.09   lakhs   of   cost   of  improvement   of   land   produced   along   with   the   return  filed for the assessment year 2010­11.  

2. NOTICE,  returnable on 21.11.2017. The respondent  Assessing Officer may continue with the assessment in  connection   with   the   impugned   notice,   final   order  thereon shall not be passed without the leave of the  Court. 

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) ANKIT Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 21 23:20:05 IST 2017