Bimlakumari Lajpatraj Hurra Vs ITO (Gujarat High court)
ITAT held that When the return of income was filed and all the relevant details including the share in the sale proceeds, the basis of the details of exemption claimed under section 54EC, the index cost etc. were shown, there was nothing to doubt the said details which figured in the return of income, which was processed. The submission that the co-owners showed the capital gains of different amount, is also not a valid ground for issue of notice under section 148 since the facts and computation in case of each assessee in respect of return of income would differ. Petitioner assessee showed all facts and details in the return of income.
Neither there existed foundational facts, nor it could be said that any tangible material was available with the assessing officer to justify exercise of power. It could be said that the basis for reopening was absent. When the foundation was missing, there could not have been erection of ground to seek reopening of assessment. It could not be said, in the facts of the case, that the assessing officer could have harboured a reason to believe acceptable in eye of law to seek reopening.
As a result of the above discussion, High Court set aside notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.3.2018.
Co-owners showed capital gains of different amount – Section 148 notice invalid
