Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

         C/SCA/20078/2018                                                JUDGMENT




10.     Therefore,               the     question              that     arises          for

consideration is whether there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. In this regard it may be pertinent to note that in the objections raised by the petitioner, it had requested the Assessing Officer vide its letter dated 06.12.2018 to furnish a copy of the order sheet notings maintained by the then Assessing Officer during the time of the original scrutiny assessment. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for specific details during the course of the original scrutiny assessment which were necessary for scrutinizing the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and in response thereto, the petitioner furnished extensive details regarding all the buyers. Therefore, the allegation that there was no full and true disclosure of all material facts is not in order. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer noted the details of the seven purchasers mentioned in the reasons recorded from the details called for during the original scrutiny assessment. Such details were furnished by the assessee vide its letter dated 15.10.2014, which included the list of residential units sold by the assessee along with the name and addresses, C/SCA/20078/2018 JUDGMENT PAN, date of booking, full schedule of payment with cash / cheque, total consideration amount, date of documentation, registration number of document, built up area, super built up area, carpet area and flat no., etc. In the order dated 11.12.2018 dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee has cited judicial decisions which have been considered; that the case has been reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act after duly recording the requisite reasons and taking prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income­tax and duly serving the assessee and that it is well within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, the reopening of the case is technically and legally valid. The Assessing Officer had further stated that the revenue had reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.86,23,123/­ chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and has concluded that the case is correctly opened as per the reasons recorded. In this regard it may be pertinent to note that on a perusal of the objections raised by the petitioner, it is evident that there is no reference to any judicial decisions therein, therefore the question of considering the same did not arise. In the objections raised by the petitioner, though the sole ground was that there C/SCA/20078/2018 JUDGMENT is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose full and true material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration as the reopening itself is based on the material furnished by the petitioner during the course of scrutiny proceedings pursuant to the Assessing Officer having called for the details, there is not even a whisper in that regard in the order disposing of the objections. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the sole objection raised by the petitioner and has side­stepped the entire issue.

Project and marked as Annexure­6.

(iii) Audit Report in Form 10CCB for A.Y. 2012­13 and marked as Annexure­7.

15. The petitioner had also furnished a statement showing the details of buyers, which included their names and addresses with PAN, income tax jurisdiction of the purchaser, date of booking, full schedule of payment with cash/cheque, total consideration amount, date of documentation, RRR No. of the document made with the office address of document made, built up area/super built up C/SCA/20078/2018 JUDGMENT area, carpet area and Flat No. A perusal of the statement shows that the names of the purchasers are serial wise and the names of the individual and spouse are in seriatim, and have the same address from which it is easily discernable that the parties are spouses. Thus, it appears that the Assessing Officer while scrutinizing the eligibility for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, has failed to examine the issue from the angle of clauses (e) and (f) thereof despite the fact that all the relevant material was before him.