LATE BHARAT JAYANTILAL PATEL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in the present Petition challenges inter alia the notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( "the Act ") dtd. 22/3/2021 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. By virtue of the said notice, assessment for the year 2013-14 is sought to be reopened, on the ground that the assessing offcer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec. 147 of the Act.

(2.) The reasons for reopening as furnished to the Petitioner are as under :

(3.) Objections to the reopening were fled by the Petitioner. One of the objections raised by the Petitioner before the assessing offcer was that Sec. 2(47)(v), which was invoked for the purpose of reopening had no application inasmuch as granting a license to the developer, who entered into the assessee 's land for the purpose of development did not amount to 'allowing the possession of the land ' as contemplated under Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and, therefore, Sec. 2(47)(v) would not apply. Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Company Circle VI(2), Chennai [2020] 115 taxmann.com 5(SC).