S. S. Landmarks v. ITO (2020) 185 DTR 149 / 312 CTR 402/ 274 Taxman 331 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing projects–Completion certificate–No failure to disclose material facts–Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law. [S.80(IB)(10), 148, Art.226]

Allowing the petition  the Court held that, merely alleging that there is failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment, would not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement unless the reasons indicate what material facts the Petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly during the course of the regular assessment.  Referred Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. v.Dy.CIT (E) (2014)  365 ITR 181 (Bom) (HC)  wherein the Court  observed that “  In the present case, admittedly, there are no details given by the Assessing Officer (respondent no.1) as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the petitioner that led to its income escaping assessment. There is merely a bald assertion in the reasons that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts without giving any details thereof. This being the case, the impugned notice is bad in law and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition”  (AY. 2012-13)