ANIL HASSANAND GAJWANI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice for reopening of the assessment issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner filed return of income for the assessment year 2006 -07 showing the total income of Rs. 76,67,256/. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner after filing the return of income, the petitioner received a notice dated 19.06.2008 calling for certain details. That another notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 25.08.2008 was received by the petitioner and in response to the said notice, the petitioner filed his reply on 11.08.2008 with the details called for. That another notice under Section 143(2) dated 25.08.2008 was issued to that also the petitioner filed letter in response to the above facts and asked for some time to file further details which had been called for. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner through another letter dated 13.10.2008 submitted all the details called for by the respondent, which pertain to investments made by the petitioner for investments in India and Capital Gain statement duly certified by Portfolio Manager, M/s. Kotal Securities Limited for Assessment year 2006 -07. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 22.12.2008 wherein he specifically dealt with the issue of capital gains, interest and dividend income declared by the petitioner and made a small disallowance of Rs. 9676/ - viz. NSDL charges claimed by the petitioner. That thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the notice dated 26.12.2012 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act informing the petitioner that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and asked the petitioner to file the return within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice as he proposed to assess escaped income. On demand by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer has supplied reasons for reopening vide his communication dated 15.10.2013. That prior thereto vide communication dated 24.01.2013, the petitioner clarified that the original return be considered to be a return filed in response to Section 148 notice and asked for the reasons of reopening which were supplied on 15.10.2013. That thereafter, the petitioner has received notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 24.1.2014. That the petitioner submitted elaborate objection on 30.1.2014 through his power of attorney holder. That thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed an order dated 17.2.2014 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the scrutiny assessment. Hence, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Nitin Mehta, learned advocate for the revenue has tried to oppose the present Special Civil Application by submitting that in the reasons recorded it has been specifically alleged that escapement of income by virtue of omission or failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned notice for reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years from the relevant assessment years is just and proper. It is further submitted that even the objection raised by the petitioner against the reopening of the assessment has been dully considered by the AO.