M.geetha v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Business Range Vi,121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS P. Kamalanathan (Died)2. K.R.Pradheep... Petitioners in W.P.No.4788 of 2012 (P2 Substituted as LR of Deceased petitioner P.Kamalanathan as per order of this court dated 19.07.2019 in WMP.No.20629 of 2019) M.Geetha... Petitioner in Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,Business Range VI,121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent in both W.Ps Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records inPAN : AAEPK9874A dated 13.02.2012 on the file of the Respondentrelating to the Assessment Year 2006-2007 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.4789 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records inPAN : AADPG9533D dated 13.02.2012 on the file of the Respondentrelating to the Assessment Year 2006-2007 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : M/s.N.Muthukumar (in both W.Ps) For Respondent : Mr.Prabu Mukunth Arunkumar(in both W.Ps)Junior Standing Counselfor Ms.Hema Murali KrishnaStanding Counsel COMMON ORDER By this common order both the writ petitions are beingdisposed. 2. In these writ petitions, the respective petitioners havechallenged the impugned communication dated 13.02.2012overruling the objections of the petitioners dated 10.02.2012 inresponse to reasons communicated vide communication dated4.10.2011 for reopening of the assessment under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 vide two notices dated 06.09.2011. 3. The petitioners were co-owners of the property whichaccording to them was a house property on a land measuring anextent of 31,037 Sq.ft., at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Vadapalani,Chennai 600 026. It is the case of the petitioners that theywere receiving rental income on the house property and haddeclared the same while filing returns in their returns for theAssessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. 4. The petitioners along with other co-owners sold the samevide sale deed dated 09.12.2005. However, in the recital of thesale deed, there is only a transfer of the land and not thehouse property. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filedreturns for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the returns wereassessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 anddeduction claimed under Section 54 was allowed by therespondent. 6. The petitioners have also invested the amounts under thecapital gains account of the Indian Bank, T.Nagar on31.05.2006/NABARD. It is submitted that there are no materialsavailable on record to show that the petitioners had failed todisclose truly and fully all material that were required for thepurpose of assessment and therefore reopening of the assessmentwas without jurisdiction. 7. It is therefore stated that the impugned communicationdated 13.02.2012 overruling the objection of the petitioner wasliable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent thatthe petitioners have failed to disclose truly and fully allmaterial facts in as much as they have only sold a land and nota house property and had therefore wrongly claimed deductionunder Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the petitioners and the respondent. 7. It is therefore stated that the impugned communicationdated 13.02.2012 overruling the objection of the petitioner wasliable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent thatthe petitioners have failed to disclose truly and fully allmaterial facts in as much as they have only sold a land and nota house property and had therefore wrongly claimed deductionunder Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the petitioners and the respondent. 10. In the returns filed for the Assessment Years 2004-05and 2005-06, the petitioners have merely shown having received ashare from the rent from the property which was sold later on09.12.2005. However, the Annexure 1 to statement of total incomefor the year ended 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005 do not clearlyspell out that the rental income from the aforesaid property isfrom renting of the land or from renting of the house.Therefore, it appears that the respondents were justified inreopening the assessment as prima facie there was no true andfull disclosure as was required of the petitioners for thepurpose of assessment. 11. The fact that the petitioners have also shown only saleof land in their sale deed dated 09.12.2005 indicates thatrespondent was justified in reopening the assessment. 12. Therefore, even though the objections of the respectivepetitioners have been overruled by the respondent vide theimpugned communications dated 13.02.2012, I am of the view thatthe respective petitioners should participate in the proceedingsunder Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by filing allevidences that are available with them to substantiate that theproperty in question was a house property and therefore thepetitioners were justified in claiming the benefit of Section 54of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. In case there has been true and full disclosure of allmaterials that were necessary for the purpose of assessmentunder Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondentwould be obliged to drop the proceeding in terms of proviso toSection 147 of the said Act. 14. The respective petitioners may file their objectionswithin a period of thirty days from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. Since the dispute pertains to AssessmentYear 2006-07, the respondent is requested to pass appropriateorders within a period of three months from the date of receipt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the respectivepetitioners shall be heard before passing final orders. 15. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed with theabove observations. No cost. Consequently, connectedMiscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrararb/jenToAssistant Commissioner of Income-tax,Business Range VI,121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai – 600 034.+1cc to Ms.Hema Murali Krishna, Advocate, S.R.No.13356+1cc to M/s.N.Muthukumar, Advocate, S.R.No.13919W.P.Nos.4788 & 4789 of 2012and M.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2012SV(CO)CS/22/05/2020