GIRILAL AND COMPANY Vs. S.L. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice was served on the petitioners by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in which it is stated that he has reason to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2001-02 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. On 1st May, 2003 an assessment order was passed under Section 143 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 12,36,393/- after allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. By the communication dated 11th April, 2007 the petitioner's Chartered Accountant sought the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment. By communication dated 12th April, 2007 the reasons were made available. The respondent No.1 found that the assessee the petitioner herein had not correctly disclosed the actual assets of the plot used for construction and hence he was not entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10). It was noted that the information regarding the actual size of the plot used for the construction of Giri Shikhar and Giri Centre was only available in the valuation report and hence the case is covered under Explanation 2 (c) (iv) of Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner filed his reply and also filed his returns.

(2.) By the present petition it is the petitioners' case that all the information was available before the Assessing Officer and consequently no income has escaped assessment. Scrutiny assessment cannot be reopened beyond 4 years and mere change of opinion does not constitute "reasons to believe". Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Corporation Bank Ltd. 254 ITR 202, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J. Rao and Anr, 2004 268 ITR 203, Judgment of this Court in Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors, 2004 269 ITR 186and the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Genmini Leather Stores v. Income Tax Officer, B-Ward, Agra and Ors. 100 ITR 2..

(3.) On the other hand on behalf of the Revenue the learned Counsel points out that the Appellant did not disclose the real size of the plot and merely because the information was contained in annexures by itself cannot be said to be disclosure of information. It is further submitted that formation of opinion by the Assessment Officer has to be considered on the touch stone whether there was reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment and for that purpose reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Ors., 1999 236 ITR 34.