NISHITH MADANLAL DESAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the challenge is to the notice dated February 29, 2012, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2005-06 was originally completed under section 142(1) of the Act. The impugned notice dated February 29, 2012, was issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 2005-06, i.e., beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons recorded for issuing of the impugned notice as communicated to the petitioner are as under:

(2.) The petitioner objected to the above reasons by communication dated April 16, 2012, to the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner pointed out that as the impugned notice seeks to reopen an assessment beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment can only arise if there has been no failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment on the part of the petitioner. It was submitted that all facts were known to the Revenue and there was no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts on the part of the petitioner in the first place. On the merits, it was submitted that the deduction allowed under section 57 of the Act as to arrive at compute the income under the head "Income from other sources" was appropriate in law. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned notice for reopening of assessment is not based on any fresh tangible material but on the basis of the verifying the record already on record before the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, prayed for withdrawal of the impugned notice.

(3.) On January 8, 2013, the Assessing Officer by order dismissed the petitioner's objections to the reasons for reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. The order dated January 8, 2013, held that no full and true disclosure has been made while filing the return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 and that there was no application of mind to the return filed by the petitioner as the same was processed under section 142(1) of the Act.