Gujarat High Court
Madhuriben Rajendrabhai Patel vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 11 December, 2019
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/22046/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22046 of 2019
==========================================================
MADHURIBEN RAJENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) 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 : 11/12/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, to point out that according to the Assessing Officer, in respect of the sale of immovable property situated at R.S. No.4/A, Block No.10/A, moje : Abrama on 06.02.2012, by executing a sale deed for document value of Rs.1,42,17,840/, stamp duty of Rs.18,44,750/ has been paid and that the market value of the property, in terms of the stamp duty, comes to Rs.3,76,46,896/ and therefore, there is a difference between the sale consideration and the fair market value and accordingly, the provisions Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 05:55:49 IST 2019 C/SCA/22046/2019 ORDER of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") would apply in the hands of the petitioner.
2. It was pointed out that during the course of scrutiny, all details with regard to the transaction in question had been produced before the Assessing Officer. Reference was made to the communication dated 26.02.2015 of the Assessing Officer addressed to the petitioner informing her that on perusal of the reply dated 13.01.2015 filed by the authorized representative, it is stated that the petitioner has sold the land situated at Village Abrama, Block No.10, Taluka Olpad, District Surat. The difference in jantri value pertains to land of Block No.9 and not to Block No.10. It was pointed out that therefore, the Assessing Officer has specifically considered the applicability of section 50C of the Act and thereafter, framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 29.03.2015, wherein he has applied section 50C of the Act to revenue survey No.4/B, Block No.9 of Village :
Abrama and has consciously not applied the same to the land in question. It was submitted that therefore, the assessment is sought to be reopened on a mere change of opinion.
3. It was submitted that the assessment is Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 05:55:49 IST 2019 C/SCA/22046/2019 ORDER sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and hence, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act lacks validity.
4. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue Notice, returnable on 20.01.2020.
By way of adinterim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 30.03.2019 issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Act for assessment year 201213 are hereby stayed.
Direct service is permitted today.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 14 05:55:49 IST 2019