| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1902 2014 SLD 1902 (2014) 367 ITR 165 |
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C) No. 1320 of 2014 C.M. Nos. 2744 & 2745 of 2014, AUGUST 14, 2014
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain and Varun Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel for the
Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1320 of 2014 C.M. Nos. 2744 & 2745 of 2014, AUGUST 14, 2014
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain and Varun Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel for the
Respondent
Madhukar Khosla
v.
Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
ORDER C. Ravindra bhat, J. - C.M. NO. 2745/2014 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1320/2014, C.M. NO.2744/2014 The petitioner challenges the notice dated 25.03.2013 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") proposing to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 @ Rs.1,12,760/-completed under Section 143 (3) by the Assessing Officer ("AO"). 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed income tax returns on 30.10.2006 for AY 2006-07. The returns were selected for scrutiny; a notice was issued on 28.02.2008 along with a questionnaire. The required details were furnished by the petitioner on 07-03-2008. The AO, accepting the explanations, framed the assessment on 28-03-2008. In this background of circumstances, the respondent AO sought to re-open the assessment by the impugned notice, under Section 147 of the Act. Responding to this notice, the assessee, on 22-04-2013 stated that it stood by the returns filed originally (and accepted by the AO on 28-03-2008); it also requested that the reasons for re-opening the assessment be furnished. 3. The Revenue acceded to the petitioner's request; the reasons furnished are extracted below: "In this case assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.3.2008 on an income of Rs.1, 12,760/-. 2. On perusal of the records and the details filed by the assessee it came to the notice that the assessee has added an amount of Rs.25,31,003/- to its capital account of his proprietorship concern M/s Madhukar Khosla & Co. (Rs.14,31,000/- as gift and Rs.11 ,00,003/- addition). During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee offered no explanation to the above addition to the capital account. 3. In the absence of the source of the addition with documentary evidence on records, the same is required to be brought on tax net as per provisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had offered no explanation about the nature and source of the said additions 4. I have therefore, reasons to believe that omission/failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material/facts necessary for assessment, income to the extent of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492