- (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)The appellant, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of construction of buildings and development of real estate. In the year 2000, the appellant/firm was engaged in developing two housing projects on a plot bearing CTS No. 329 B(Part) of village Kondiwita in Andheri (East) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the said plot"). The said plot was acquired by the appellant originally as a capital asset but portion thereof was converted at different points of time into stock-in-trade. The appellant on 29.10.2001 filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-02. After scrutiny of the said return of income, a notice dated 15.03.2007 was served on the appellant under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia alleging that the appellant's income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2001-02 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. On 1st May, 2003, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 12,36,393/- after allowing deduction under Section 80-1B(10) of the Act. Vide communication dated 11.04.2007 the appellant sought the reason recorded for re-opening the assessment which were made available to the appellant on 12.04.2007. It was found that the appellant had not correctly disclosed the actual assets of the said plot and hence the appellant was not entitled for deduction under Section 80(1B) (10) of the Act. It was noted that the information regarding the actual size of the plot used for the construction 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 appellant objected assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 for the reason that the appellant had disclosed all the facts fully and truly and respondent no. 1 was fully aware of the FSI. Respondent no. 2 rejected the objections. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the notice dated 15.03.2007 issued under Section 147 of the Act. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.12.2007 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.)Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/firm submits that there was no reason to open the assessment when in the return filed by the appellant full disclosure of all the relevant facts was made. On this basis, it is further argued that it was merely a case of change of opinion which is not a valid ground for reopening of the assessment. In order to buttress his submission he has drawn our attention to the communication dated 10.02.2003 addressed by the appellant to the Assessing Officer. In para 11 thereof, there is a mention about the land in question. After going through the same, we are constrained to reject the aforesaid submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant. In para 11, only the value of the land is stated and in support, a certificate from the registered Architect and Engineer is filed.