Gujarat High Court
Shefali Chintan Parikh vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 25 November, 2019
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/20723/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20723 of 2019
==========================================================
SHEFALI CHINTAN PARIKH
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(2)(1)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 25/11/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1.Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to submit that the assessment is sought to be reopened on the basis of information received from DIT (I&CI), Ahmedabad vide letter dated 16.02.2015 with respect to sale of immovable property. It was submitted that according to the Assessing Officer, there is a difference between the jantri value of the land and the consideration received in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
2.It was submitted that the information relied upon is dated 16.02.2015 which is prior to framing of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that earlier, the DIT (I&CI) had issued notice to the petitioner on 24.12.2013 and sought her explanation in respect of various transactions Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 26 23:15:29 IST 2019 C/SCA/20723/2019 ORDER including the transaction in question and that the petitioner had submitted her reply thereto. It was submitted that even during the course of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to submit required details of the land sold by her during the year under consideration. It was submitted that in response thereto, the petitioner had submitted the required details of the land in specified format along with copy of the sale deed wherein details of the subject land were provided at serial number 7 thereto. It was submitted that the petitioner had further submitted explanation in respect of the transaction in question and as to why the jantri value should not be deemed as sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act. It was submitted that thereafter, the Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that therefore, the respondent Assessing Officer seeks to reopen the assessment on a mere change of opinion. It was submitted that even the issue of quoting PAN of different persons was duly answered by the petitioner at the relevant point of time. It was submitted that therefore, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for her assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Moreover, there is no fresh tangible material available with the respondent as such material was already available with the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny assessment and hence, the reopening of assessment beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year lacks validity.
3. Lastly, it was submitted that no income has escaped Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 26 23:15:29 IST 2019 C/SCA/20723/2019 ORDER assessment inasmuch as the lands in question were stock in trade of the petitioner and section 50C of the Act has no applicability to the same.
4. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Issue Notice, returnable on 21st January 2020. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notice dated 28.03.2019 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-2013 are hereby stayed.
5. Direct service, is permitted.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 26 23:15:29 IST 2019