Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Abha Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
May, 27th 2016
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
17 & 18
+             W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & CM No.3741/2013
       PRIYA DESH GUPTA                       ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ashish
                    Kumar, Advocates.

                                Versus

       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
                   Counsel and Mr Deepak Anand, Junior Standing
                   Counsel.

                                         AND

+                      W.P.(C) 2015/2013 & CM No.3834/2013
       ABHA GUPTA                                         ..... Petitioner
                                Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ashish
                                Kumar, Advocates.

                                Versus

       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
                   Counsel and Mr Deepak Anand, Junior Standing
                   Counsel.

       CORAM:
       JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
       JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                    ORDER
       %            16.05.2016




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                  Page 1 of 20
VIBHU BAKHRU, J


1.     The Petitioners have filed these petitions assailing separate notices

issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act')

seeking to reopen their respective assessments for Assessment Year (AY)

2007-08. The Petitioners also impugn orders dated 18th March, 2013

rejecting their respective objections against assumption of jurisdiction under

Section 147 of the Act.


2.     The Petitioners along with other promoter shareholders held 36.63%

of the paid-up share capital of M/s Phoenix Lamps Limited (hereafter

,,PLL), a public listed company engaged in the business of manufacturing,

selling and marketing of automotive lamps, compact fluorescent lamps and

other general lighting lamps. The Petitioners sold their shares in PLL in

terms of a warrant subscription and share purchase agreement and the gains

therefrom were assessed to tax under the Act as Capital Gains. According to

the Revenue, part of the consideration received by the Petitioner ­ Rs. 38 per

share ­ is non-compete fee and is assessable as business income. This is the

principal reason recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for believing that

the income of the Petitioners for AY 2007-08 had escaped assessment.




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 2 of 20
3.     The Petitioners contend that the entire transaction was examined in

detail by the AO during the assessment proceedings which culminated in

assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act. They submit that in the

given facts, the impugned notices are occasioned by a mere change of

opinion and AO does not have any fresh tangible material which would

provide him a reason to believe that their respective incomes for AY 2007-

08 have escaped assessment.


4.     Since the material facts and the controversy involved in these two

petitions are similar, the same were heard together. For the sake of brevity,

the facts relating to W.P. (C) 1962/2013 are noticed hereunder.


4.1    The Petitioner, Smt. Priya Desh Gupta (hereafter 'the Assessee') held

14.68% of the paid-up equity capital of PLL at the material time.


4.2    On 3rd July, 2006, the Assessee alongwith other promoter

shareholders, holding an aggregate 36.63% of the shareholding in PLL,

entered into a tripartite Warrant Subscription and Share Purchase Agreement

(hereafter referred to as ,,the WSSPA') with two Mauritian companies, M/s

Argon India Ltd. and M/s Argon South Asia Ltd. (hereafter 'the Acquirers'),

for sale of their entire shareholding in PLL. In terms of the WSSPA, the




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                     Page 3 of 20
consideration for the shares was fixed at Rs.152 per share. In addition, the

shareholders were also entitled to a consideration of Rs.38 per share as non-

compete fee. Since the PLL is a public listed company and the shareholding

sought to be acquired by the Acquirers was in excess of the specified limit,

the Acquirers were obliged to make an open offer in terms of the SEBI

(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. In

terms of the aforesaid Regulations, the Acquirers furnished a draft Letter of

Offer seeking to acquire shares from public at the rate of Rs. 152 per share.

By a letter dated, 27th December, 2006, Securities and Exchange Board of

India (SEBI) directed the Acquirers to revise the offer price by including the

non-compete fee payable to the promoter shareholders; that is, from Rs. 152

per share to Rs. 190 per share.


4.3    Thereafter, on 28th December, 2006, the Assessee as well as other

promoter shareholders of PLL entered into a revised agreement (hereafter

,,the revised WSSPA) whereby the sale price for each share of PLL payable

to the Assessee and other promoter shareholders, was revised to Rs.190 per

share; the non-compete fee of Rs. 38 per share was deleted but the covenant

not to compete was retained in the revised WSSPA.


4.4    The Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2007-08 on 31st




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 4 of 20
October, 2007 declaring an income of Rs.65,75,85,234/-. In the said return,

the Assessee declared long term capital gains of Rs. 62,63,35,779/- and

short term capital gains of Rs.46,68,008/- taxable at the lower rate of 10%.

The return filed by the Assessee was picked-up for scrutiny. Thereafter, a

notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith a questionnaire was issued

by the AO on 27th May, 2009. In response to the aforesaid notice, the

Assessee provided the necessary documents including Statement of Affairs,

Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for financial year 2005-06 and

2006-07 along with Computation of Income and Audit Report for financial

year 2006-07.


5.     The AO examined the documents furnished by the Assessee and

during the course of assessment proceedings, also called upon the Assessee

to furnish further information and documents. In response to the queries

raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee furnished

further information and documents under the cover of letters dated 20th July,

2009, 12th August, 2009 and 31st August, 2009. The documents furnished by

the Assessee included WSSPA dated 3rd July, 2006, revised WSSPA dated

28th December, 2006 , SEBI's letter dated 27th December, 2006 as well as a

detailed statement indicating the dates of acquisition of shares. The Assessee




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 5 of 20
also provided statement of shareholding by Stock Holding Corporation of

India Ltd., indicating the shares held by the Assessee in PLL.


6.     After examining the statements and documents furnished by the

Assessee, the AO found that Securities Transaction Tax (STT) had not been

paid in respect of sale of shares resulting in short-term capital gains to the

extent of Rs.45,51,121/- out of the declared short-term capital gains of

Rs.46,68,008/-. He, accordingly, passed an assessment order taxing the

aforesaid short-term capital gains of Rs. 45,51,121/- at 30% instead of 10%

as claimed by the Assessee.


7.     The Assessee received a notice dated 28th March, 2012 issued under

Section 148 of the Act for AY 2007-08 (impugned notice). The Assessee

requested for reasons for issuance of the said impugned notice and the same

were provided during the course of hearing scheduled by the AO. The

Assessee has filed her objections to the said reasons which were disposed of

by an order dated 18th March, 2013. The said order is also impugned by the

Assessee.


Reasons for reopening of assessment


8.     The reasons recorded by the AO indicates that he had received







W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 6 of 20
information from CIT(A) X pointing out that as per the WSSPA dated 3rd

July, 2006, the consideration payable to the Assessee for her shares of PLL

was agreed at Rs.152 per share and in addition Rs.38 per share was to be

paid as non-compete fee. The reasons further noted that during the course of

assessment proceedings, the Assessee had produced the original WSSPA as

well as the Letter of Offer issued by the Acquirers for acquiring a minimum

of 20% of the public shareholding at the rate of Rs.190 per share in

accordance with the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)

Regulations, 1997. The AO noted that the SEBI advisory to revise the offer

price for PLL shares to Rs.190 was made only for public shareholders and

not for promoter shareholders (including the Assessee). He observed that an

incorrect impression was given that the sale consideration for purchase of

shares of promoter shareholders including the Assessee was revised upwards

from Rs.152 to Rs.190 per share pursuant to the SEBI advisory. Although,

the revised WSSPA retained the non-compete clauses, no consideration was

ascribed to such provisions.


8.1    The AO concluded that since the revised WSSPA did not ascribe any

consideration for the non-compete covenants, it was not a valid contract and

was void. He proceeded to refer to provisions of the Indian Contract Act,




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                  Page 7 of 20
1872 and various decisions rendered by the Courts wherein it was held that

agreements without consideration are void.


8.2    He, thus, concluded that the revised WSSPA was devoid of any

commercial substance and the sole motive for entering into the revised

WSSPA was to avoid tax.


8.3    In the aforesaid context, the AO recorded that the non-compete fee

calculated at Rs.38 per share payable in terms of WSSPA dated 3 rd July,

2006 was taxable as business income under Section 28(va) of the Act.


8.4    The AO further tabulated that 13,60,000 shares of PLL were acquired

by the Assessee "during 31st March, 2006" and 1,200 shares were acquired

by the Assessee "up to 19th May, 2006". He held that since the WSSPA was

entered into on 3rd July, 2006, these shares were held for a period less than

12 months and, therefore, qualified as short-term capital assets; but, the

Assessee had misled the Department into believing that all shares were held

by her for more than 12 months by submitting letters claiming that the

subject shares were held for more than 12 months.


Reasoning and Conclusions


9.     It is apparent from the above that the AO has not referred to any




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                   Page 8 of 20
material, other than what had been examined by the AO in the initial round

of assessment proceedings, for forming his belief that the Assessees income

for AY 2007-08 has escaped assessment; his belief is based solely on the

basis of material already examined by the AO during the first round of

assessment proceedings. A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO also

indicate that the AO had initiated the proceedings for re-assessment,

apparently, pursuant to a letter sent by CIT(A) X who had opined that the

revised WSSPA was void and the consideration of Rs.38 per share should be

attributed to non-compete clauses. This, clearly, is a matter of opinion - and

a highly contested one at that - regarding agreements in question, namely

WSSPA and the revised WSSPA, which were duly considered by the AO at

the time of initial assessment.


10.    It is also relevant to note that in the case of another promoter

shareholder of PLL, Hulas Rahul Gupta, who is also a party to WSSPA and

revised WSSPA, the AO had accepted the sale of shares of PLL at Rs.190

per share. Accordingly, the AO had not been consistent with what he had

done in the case of the Assessee; the AO assessed the gains from sale of

shares of PLL as capital gains in the hands of Hulas Rahul Gupta.


10.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter ,,CIT) was of the view




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 9 of 20
that the assessment made in the case of Hulas Rahul Gupta for AY 2007-08

was erroneous as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, accordingly,

made an order under Section 263 of the Act dated 15th March, 2010

modifying the assessment order and directing the AO to treat a sum of

Rs.17,72,17,484/- as business income under Section 28(va) of the Act. The

Assessee in that case, Hulas Rahul Gupta, preferred an appeal before the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (being ITA No. 1577/Del/2010) assailing

the order dated 15th March, 2010 passed under Section 263 of the Act.


10.2 In those proceedings before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf

of the Revenue that a reading of the WSSPA indicated that Rs.38 per share

was taxable as income from business under Section 28(va) of the Act. The

written submission filed on behalf of the Revenue referred to various

provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and claimed that the revised

WSSPA was void; these are echoed in the reasons recorded by the AO in the

present case. The Assessee, on the other hand, contended that there was no

justification for segregating the consideration paid in terms of the revised

WSSPA. The Assessee further pointed out that more than 20% of the shares

of PLL were acquired by the Acquirers from public at a price of Rs.190 per

share and thus, there was no reason to hold that the sale price of shares in the




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                     Page 10 of 20
case of the Assessee was lower. It was further pointed out by the Assessee

that there was no grievance that the AO had not examined the relevant

agreements and the scope of Section 263 of the Act could not be invoked

where two views were possible.


10.3 After hearing the rival contentions, the Tribunal observed that the CIT

had passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO

had applied incorrect provisions of law while assessing the income and there

was no allegation that proper enquiry had not been held. The Tribunal

further rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the

revised WSSPA was void as per Sections 10, 25 and 27 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872. It held that the parties were competent to enter into a

contract, and fix the price for the subject shares. The Tribunal further noted

that it was not the Revenue's case that the shares were sold at a price lower

than that available in the market and held that the Revenue did not have the

power to hold that the shares were sold by charging a non-compete fee

where the revised WSSPA did not reflect so. The Tribunal also rejected the

Revenue's contention that the revised WSSPA was a colourable device to

avoid tax. The Tribunal finally concluded that the AO had taken one of the

possible views and could not be stated to have applied any incorrect




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 11 of 20
provisions of law.        Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee was

allowed.


11.    We are informed that the Revenue has not preferred an appeal against

the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. It is also relevant to note that the

reasons recorded by the AO in the present case is identically worded, in

certain material parts, as the written submissions filed on behalf of the

Revenue before the Tribunal in the case of Hulas Rahul Gupta. The AO

issued the impugned notice after the Revenue had failed in persuading the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to accept their submissions; the impugned

notice dated 28th March, 2012 was issued five days after the pronouncement

of the decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the aforementioned

case of Hulas Rahul Gupta.


12.    The queries raised by the AO and the submissions made by the

Assessee in response thereto amply bear out that the AO had examined the

WSSPA, the revised WSSPA and the letter dated 27th December 2006 issued

by SEBI to revise the public offer price for PLL shares from Rs. 152 per

share to Rs. 190 per share. In these given facts, there could be no dispute

that the AO had examined all relevant facts with regard to the sale price of

the shares in question and had made the assessment accordingly.




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                  Page 12 of 20
13.    Insofar as the allegations that certain shares were held by the Assessee

for a period less than 12 months is concerned, the same is disputed by the

Assessee. During the course of proceedings, Mr Salil Aggarwal, learned

counsel for the Assessee has handed over a statement of shareholding as

enclosed with the Assessee's letter dated 12th August, 2009. This statement

clearly discloses various dates on which subject shares were acquired by the

Assessee.      This indicates that certain shares had been acquired by the

Assessee by way of a gift. Undisputedly, for the purposes of considering

whether the same were long-term capital assets or not, the date on which the

donor acquired the shares is relevant and not the date on which the Assessee

aquired the shares in question. In any view of the matter, it is not disputed

that the statement of shareholding indicating the dates on which the subject

shares were acquired was provided to the AO in response to the queries

raised by him. Thus, it cannot be accepted that the AO did not consider the

same while making the assessment order. Thus, it is apparent that the

present case is one where the issuance of the impugned notice is occasioned

by a change of opinion, which given the scope of Section 147-148 of the

Act, is impermissible.


14.    In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of a Full Bench of




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                       Page 13 of 20
this Court in CIT v. Usha International Ltd.: (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Delhi)

had held as under:-


       "Re-assessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or
       query is raised and answered by the assessee in original
       assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer
       does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such
       situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but
       the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make
       addition or reject the stand of the assessee. He forms an
       opinion. The re-assessment will be invalid because the
       Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original
       assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons."

15.    Following the aforesaid decision, a Division Bench of this Court in

Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax:

[2013] 356 ITR 209 (Delhi) had explained that in cases where no query is

raised, it must be held that the Assessing Officer had examined the subject

matter even though there may not be any discussion in the assessment order.

The Court had referred to the decision in Usha International (supra) and

observed as under:-


       "It is apparent from the above extract that even in cases where
       no query is raised by the assessing officer in the course of the
       original assessment proceedings it may yet be held that the
       assessing officer had examined the subject matter. This is so
       because the aspect or question in issue may be too apparent and
       obvious. However, the Full Bench cautioned by stating that
       such cases would have to be examined individually. It is,




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                   Page 14 of 20
       therefore, clear that even where no query is raised by the
       assessing officer and there is no discussion in the assessment
       order, it may yet be a case where the assessing officer would be
       considered to have examined the issue. However, we are not
       concerned with those type of cases inasmuch as in the present
       case the assessing officer had clearly raised a specific query
       with regard to bad debts/advances written off and the
       petitioner/assessee had given details in respect thereof. It is
       obvious that since no such addition was made on that count, the
       assessing officer had considered and examined the position and
       held in favour of the petitioner/assessee. Therefore, we can
       safely conclude that, in the facts and circumstances of the
       present case, the assessing officer had, indeed, examined the
       issue at the time of the original assessment proceedings and had
       formed an opinion by not making any addition in respect
       thereof. Thus, the reopening of the assessment which had been
       concluded on 13.03.2006, would be nothing but a mere change
       of opinion."

16.    A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in CIT v.

Kelvinator of India Ltd.: [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), wherein it

authoritatively held that a mere change of opinion cannot be a reason to re-

open assessments. The relevant extract from the said decision is as under:-


       "6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to
       section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax
       Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under
       the above two conditions and fulfilment of the said conditions
       alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a
       back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act (with effect from
       1st April, 1989), they are given a go-by and only one condition
       has remained, viz., that where the Assessing Officer has reason
       to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers
       jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. Therefore, post-1st




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                   Page 15 of 20
       April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider. However, one
       needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to
       believe" failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give
       arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open
       assessments on the basis of " mere change of opinion", which
       cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind
       the conceptual difference between power to review and power
       to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he
       has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based
       on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "
       change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the
       Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment,
       review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change
       of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the
       Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing
       Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible
       material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of
       income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with
       the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the
       changes made to section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove.
       Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987,
       Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but
       also inserted the word "opinion" in section 147 of the Act.
       However, on receipt of representations from the Companies
       against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament
       re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word
       "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in
       the Assessing Officer."

17.    In Andhra Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax: [1997] 225

ITR 447 (SC), the Supreme Court held that once the Income Tax Officer

had passed an order after taking into account the relevant facts, it was not

open for his successor to re-open the assessment at a later point of time. The

relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:-







W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 16 of 20
       "The facts stated above clearly disclose that the Income-tax
       Officer allowed the change in the method of accounting for the
       assessment years concerned herein knowingly. It was not a case
       of an inadvertent mistake which was discovered later on after
       completion of the assessment or oversight. Once it is found that
       the change in the method of accounting was knowingly allowed
       by the Income-tax Officer after taking into account all the
       relevant facts it is not permissible for the Income-tax Officer, or
       his successor, to reopen the assessment at a later point of time
       under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act unless any
       information comes from an extraneous source. Further, we fail
       to see what is the "information" available to the Income-tax
       Officer in this case on the basis of which he is seeking to
       reopen the assessments under clause (b) of section 147. We find
       none. Indeed, this appears to be a case of mere change of
       opinion. The principles enunciated in Kalyanji Mavjis case
       [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) cannot save the impugned action of the
       Income-tax Officer."

18.    Mr Zoheb Hossain, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue

contended that the Petitioners had failed to fully and truly disclose the

relevant material. In our view, the said contention is not relevant as the

impugned notice was issued within a period of four years from the end of

the relevant assessment year and, therefore, the proviso to Section 147(1) of

the Act is not attracted.


19.    Next, Mr Hossain contended that in terms of clause 20 of the SEBI

(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, public

offer price for acquiring shares from public would necessarily also include

the consideration for a restrictive covenant agreed with the sellers, which




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                      Page 17 of 20
triggers the obligation to make an open offer. He argued that the aforesaid

Regulations were framed pursuant to suggestions made by Justice Bhagwati

Committee for protection of minority shareholders. He contended that the

price of Rs.190 per share was fixed by SEBI taking into account the non-

compete fee. Be that as it may, in our view the aforesaid contentions are not

relevant as the issue at hand is not whether the assessment made by AO was

erroneous or not. The only question to be considered is whether the AO had

formed an opinion on the basis of all relevant facts. In the facts of the

present case, it is clear that the AO had made the assessment order after

taking into account all the relevant facts and, therefore, it is not open for his

successor to now re-open the said assessment without any further tangible

material giving rise to a reasonable belief that the Assessees income has

escaped assessment.


20.    For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.(C) 1962/2013 is liable to be allowed.


21.    The material facts relating to W.P.(C) 2015/2013 are also similar. In

that case the Petitioner, Abha Gupta held 2.35% of the shareholding of PLL

at the material time. She too had entered into the agreements alongwith other

promoter shareholders ­ WSSPA and revised WSSPA - for sale of her

shareholding in PLL to the Acquirers. She filed her return of income for AY




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                      Page 18 of 20
2007-08 declaring income of Rs.10,63,49,534/-. As in the case of Priya

Desh Gupta above, her return was also picked up for scrutiny and she also

provided all relevant documents including WSSPA and revised WSSPA to

the AO; who after examining the relevant facts passed an assessment order

under Section 143(3) of the Act on 5th October, 2009 accepting the income

declared by her.


22.    A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to Abha Gupta on

21st March, 2012 calling upon her to file her return of income for AY 2007-

08. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Petitioner filed her return

declaring the income as originally declared by her. She also requested for

reasons to believe for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act which

was provided to her on 25th October, 2012. The reasons recorded in this

case are almost identical to the reasons as recorded in the case of Priya Desh

Gupta except that in this case, there is no allegation that any of the subject

shares held by the Petitioner were short-term capital assets.


23.    The Petitioner objected to the reasons which were disposed of on 18th

March, 2013 in terms similar to those as in the case of Priya Desh Gupta.


24.    For the reasons as stated above, this petition (W.P.(C) 2015/2013) is




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 19 of 20
also liable to be allowed.


25.    In view of the aforeasid, the notice dated 28th March, 2012 impugned

in W.P.(C) 1962/2013 and the notice dated 21st March, 2012 impugned in

W.P.(C) 2015/2013 are set aside. The re-assessment proceedings

commenced pursuant to the aforesaid impugned notices are quashed.


26.    The petitions are allowed. The pending applications also stand

disposed of. However, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their

own costs.




                                                    VIBHU BAKHRU, J




                                                    S.MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 16, 2016
RK




W.P.(C) 1962/2013 & 2015/2013                                    Page 20 of 20

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions