The Gujarat High Court in the case Bimlakumari Lajpatraj Hurra Versus Income Tax Officer observed and has held that when the foundation was missing, thus, there could have been the erection of ground wherein seeking to reopening of assessment.
The bench comprising of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Devan M. Desai in the case observed and has stated that neither the foundation facts existed and nor could nay tangible material be available with the assessing officer in order to justify the exercise of power for reopening the assessment.
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee challenged the notice issued dated 30.03.2018 by the assessing officer against the petitioner as stated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein seeking to reopen the assessment. Therefore, it has also been noted by the court that for the notice issued for the assessment year 2011–2012, the income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment which being within the meaning as it is stated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Further, the objection is filed by the assessee to the reasons wherein it is provided by stating that in his letter dated 01.09.2018 that the immovable property was being sold by the petitioner assessee along with four other persons which being for a total sale consideration for an amount of Rs. 9 crores.
Therefore, the petitioner or assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011–2012 after considering the capital gains. Thus, the computation of income was duly being reflected and it showed the 1/5th share of the value of the sale of the immovable property—the bungalow, wherein the sale of the immovable property bungalow was by five joint owners wherein having equal shares.
It has also been submitted by the petitioner in the plea that the assessing officer had reopened the case which being beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the petitioner sold the immovable property, along with the other five co-owners for the total consideration for an amount of Rs. 9 crores and has filed the return of income, which being only for the net income.
Further, the department in the case submitted before the court that the petitioner had not declared the capital gains and that there being an escapement of income. Thus, the other co-owner assessed the total capital gain for an amount of Rs. 1,27,94,856.
Accordingly, the court stated that all facts and details are shown by the assessee with regards to return of income and there being no question of reopening the assessment.
The counsel, Darshan R Patel appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Karan Sanghani represented the Respondent.
