CHINNATHAMBI RAJESWARI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(MD)/4155/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Chinnathambi Rajeswari, the petitioner, who challenged the re-opening of her income tax assessment for the year 2014-15. The re-opening was based on a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to alleged underreporting of the stamp duty value of a property she purchased. The original assessment was completed on 28.12.2018, but was later re-opened, leading to additional tax assessments. The petitioner contested the re-opening and the subsequent assessments, leading to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered all relevant information, which was crucial for a fair assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747249 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N DILIP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VANDANA VYAS
• Keywords: Faceless Assessment Scheme; Impugned notice; Jurisdiction; Re-opening of assessment; Stamp Duty Value; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148; 143(3); 56(2)(vii)(b); 139

Judgement Text

"W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3567 and 3570 of 2022 Chinnathambi Rajeswari ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), 3rd Floor, Nanji Kottai Road, Thanjavur 613 006 2.Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 3.Principal Commercial of Income Tax, Madurai-1, No.2, VP Rathinasamy Nadar Road, CR BLDG, Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in PAN AFMPR2482L and 1/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 quash the impugned notice u/s. 148 in ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032067010(3) issued on 31.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings in ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1039912755(1) dated 18.02.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.Vandana Vyas For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the first respondent overruling the objection of the petitioner against the re- opening of the assessment that was completed earlier on 28.12.2018, vide impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.The facts on record indicate that the petitioner had voluntarily filed a return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.09.2014. In the return that was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had declared the total taxable income at Rs.14,49,670/- and an agricultural income at Rs.12,45,000/-. The petitioner had acquired an immovable property (vacant site) jointly along with her son, wherein the stated 2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 value of the property was declared as Rs.51,00,000/-. The Registering Authority however objected to the same and appeared to have demanded stamp duty on the same property at the guideline value of Rs.1,74,24,000/-. 3.Under these circumstances, the assessment that was completed earlier under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018 pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.10.2017. It appears that the petitioner had also filed further appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in ITA.No.208/2018-19/CIT(A)-1/TRY. There, a partial relief was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2020. Meanwhile, the petitioner had attempted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme under the Finance Act, 2021. 4.During the interregnum, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner for the second time for the following reasons as in reasons furnished to the petitioner for the first time by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.08.2021 and 08.11.2021. Meanwhile, the assessment was made under the 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 and thus, the assessment was taken over by the first respondent. 5.By another communication dated 02.02.2022, the petitioner was issued with further reasons for re-opening of the assessment that was earlier completed on 28.12.2018. The reasons furnished to the petitioner in the respective communications dated 08.11.2021 by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer and by the Additional Joint Commissioner under the faceless Assessment Scheme more or less read identical. They are reproduced below:- S.No. Communications dated Reasons 1 08.11.2021 The assessee is a doctor by profession deriving income from pension, house property filed its return of Income for the Asst. Year 2014-15 on 30.9.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 14,49,670 and agricultural income of Rs. 12.45,000/- The assessee had acquired a vacant site jointly with her son by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2014 (DOC No. 89/2014) for a sale consideration of Rs.51 lakhs, but the stamp value of the property stood at Rs 1,74,24,000/- However the assessee has admitted only Rs.51 lakhs. Accordingly the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w 147 making addition of Rs 82,16,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) whereas the SRO considered the guideline value of the property at Rs. 3,26,70,000/- and levied additional stamp duty of RS 10,67.220/- Aggrieved against it, the assessee approached the Spl Dy Thasilhar (Stamps), after the filed inspection by the Spl.Dy Thasilar assessed the site value at Rs.550/- per sq.f and stating that it has been recorded as house site in the SRO guideline value register On further appeal, the Registrar General of Registration, Chennai fixed the site value at Rs.450/- per sq.ft and to give effect to that the Spl. Tahsildhar (Stamps) passed proceedings dated 02.04.2018 vide RC.No.404/2015 (Stamp duty) RR Act and ordered the value of the property at Rs. 1,96,35,500/- Hence, the stamp duty value for the said property of the assessee stands at Rs. 1,96,356,500/- Whereas in the reassessment the AO adopted only Rs. 1,74,24,000/- as stamp duty value and the differential amount of Rs 22,11,500/ was omitted to be considered. 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 2 02.02.2022 The assessee is a doctor by profession deriving income from pension, house property filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2014-15 on 30.9.2014 admitting total income of Rs 14.49.670 and agricultural income of Rs 12,45,000/-. The assessee had acquired a vacant site jointly with her son by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2014 (DOC No. 89/2014) for a sale consideration of Rs.51 lakhs, but the stamp value of the property stood at Rs.1,74.24,000/- However, the assessee has admitted only Rs.51 lakhs. Accordingly the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) rw 147 making addition of Rs. 82,16,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) whereas the SRO considered the guideline value of the property at Rs.3,26,70,000/- and levied additional stamp duty of RS.10,67 220/- Aggrieved against it, the assessee approached the Spl Dy Thasilhar (Stamps), after the filed inspection by the Spl.Dy. Thasilar, assessed the site value ar Rs.550/- per sq.ft and stating that it has been recorded as house site in the SRO guideline value register On further appeal, the Registrar General of Registration, Chennai fixed the site value at Rs.450/- per sq. ft and to give effect to that the Spl. Tahsildhar (Stamps) passed proceedings dated 02.04.2018 vide RC.No.404/2015 (Stamp duty) RR Act and ordered the value of the property at Rs. 1,96,35,500/- Hence, the stamp duty value for the said property of the assessee stands at Rs. 1,96,356,500/- Whereas in the reassessment the AO adopted only Rs. 174,24,000/- as stamp duty value and the differential amount of Rs 22.11.500/ was omitted to be considered. Hence, I have a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped easement within the meaning of section 147 and accordingly, for issue of notice u/s 148, I solicit the necessary approval of the Pr Commission of income tax-1 Madurai.\" Further, I would like to draw your attention to the notice u/s 143(2) issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in your case on 8/11/2021 wherein, you can easily find the reason recorded for reopening of the proceedings in its annexure. Therefore you have had enough time to raise objections, but it was not so happened. Though the same is again provided as above Further it is seen that, the addition on account of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is confirmed by Ld. CIT (A)-1, Trichy by order u / s 250 dated: 3/1 / 2020 And, you have also informed that you have opted VsVs scheme. Nevertheless, considering the above facts or the merits therein, the reason recorded alongwith sanction/approval from appropriate authority taken digitally in ITD-ITBA system is being shared as Attachment\" herewith. Furthermore, I would like to say that there is no bar to make compliance against the query or the issue nvolved in the reopening proceedings in parallel with the objections raised, if the assessee desire. 6.It appears that against the decision of the Stamp Authority seeking to enhance the guideline value of the property at Rs.1,74,29,000/-, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1882. The 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 aforesaid proceeding ultimately culminated in a decision dated 02.04.2018, whereby the stamp value of the property was further enhanced to Rs. 1,96,35,000/-. 7.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 and the impugned communication dated 18.02.2022 rejecting the objection of the petitioner for re-opening of the assessment that was completed on 28.12.2018 on the ground that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ACIT Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd., reported in (2023) 148 taxmann.com 432 (Madras), wherein, this Court has held as under:- “8. ......... a) That the impugned proceeding is admittedly initiated invoking the extended period under Section 147 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said Section is extracted below: Provided that where an assessment under sub~section(3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub~section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year.-- A reading of the above provision would show that while it is open to the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 147 of the Act within a period of four years, 6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 of the Act. The proviso to Section 147 of the Act, enables the Assessing Officer to make reassessment even after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but, within six years from the relevant assessment year, if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment under the following circumstances, viz., a. Failure of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 of the Act. b. Does not make a return in response to a notice issued under Sub~Section (1) to Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act. c. Failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 9. In the present case, admittedly the extended period of six years is being invoked not under (a) or (b) set out above but only in view of (c) i.e., failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that while furnishing the reasons for reassessment vide its communication dated 06.01.2014, there is no finding that there was failure on the part of the appellant to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. It is submitted that in the absence of any finding on the above jurisdictional fact, the entire proceeding would be void and a nullity. We find there is merit in the above submission inasmuch as the normal period of limitation for exercising the power of reassessment under Section 147 of the Act is four years. The extended period of six years could be invoked only under three circumstances set~out/ mentioned above. Admittedly, the only circumstance which could have enabled the respondents to invoke the extended period of 6 years in the present case is to bring the proceedings under clause (c). To invoke the extended period of six years for reassessment, the reasons furnished for reassessment ought to contain a finding that the appellant herein had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. We say this, since it appears to us that the whole idea of furnishing reasons before embarking on a full fledged exercise of reassessment was to ensure that the powers of reassessment are exercised only in circumstances which the statute permit. The above limitation/restriction on the power of reassessment was intended to ensure transparency in the proceeding and to avoid abuse of power. It is trite law that power of reassessment must be exercised with a degree of caution and an element of circumspection and must be strictly in compliance with the procedure and only in circumstances which warrants exercise of that power. In the present case, 7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 though admittedly the power to reassess has been exercised by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, there is no recording of the existence of the circumstances, viz., failure to disclose fully and truly all material particulars which would confer jurisdiction to proceed / initiate reassessment proceeding beyond four years and within six years. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments to appreciate the relevance and importance of existence of jurisdictional facts and an application of mind as to its existence by the authority concerned before assuming jurisdiction. It is relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC 732, which reads as under: --74. A ?jurisdictional fact? is a fact which must exist before a court, tribunal or an authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non~existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency-s power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess.-- 75. In Halsbury-s Laws of England, it has been stated: Where the jurisdiction of a tribunal is dependent on the existence of a particular state of affairs, that state of affairs may be described as preliminary to, or collateral to the merits of, the issue. If, at the inception of an inquiry by an inferior tribunal, a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to make up its mind whether to act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 76. The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court of limited jurisdiction.“ (emphasis supplied) 10. The Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar, thereafter proceeded to rely upon the decision in the case of White & Collins vs. Minister of Health reported in (1939) 2 BK 838 and observed as under: “80. The Court relied upon a decision in White & Collins v.Minister of Health [(1939) 2 KB 838 : 108 LJ KB 768 : (1939) 3 All ER 548 (CA) sub nom Ripon (Highfield) Housing Order, 1938, Re] wherein a question debated was whether the court had jurisdiction to review the finding of administrative 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 authority on a question of fact. The relevant Act enabled the local authority to acquire land compulsorily for housing of working classes. But it was expressly provided that no land could be acquired which at the date of compulsory purchase formed part of park, garden or pleasure ground. An order of compulsory purchase was made which was challenged by the owner contending that the land was a part of park. The Minister directed public inquiry and on the basis of the report submitted, confirmed the order. 81.Interfering with the finding of the Minister and setting aside the order, the Court of Appeal stated; “The first and the most important matter to bear in mind is that the jurisdiction to make the order is dependent on a finding of fact; for, unless the land can be held not to be part of a park or not to be required for amenity or convenience, there is no jurisdiction in the borough council to make, or in the Minister to confirm, the order.” (emphasis supplied) 11.While on the question of existence or otherwise of jurisdictional fact which would enable the authority to invoke the extended period of limitation of six years for reassessment, it may also be relevant to note that the question of limitation has been understood to be one involving jurisdiction even under the Excise Law and in the absence of finding of the existence of the circumstances enabling the invoking of the extended period, it has been held by the Hon-ble Supreme Court that the issuance of Show Cause Notice itself is impermissible. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the judgment in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd v. CCE reported in (2004) 3 SCC 48, wherein, after extracting the judgment of the Hpn-ble Supreme Court in the case of Easland Combines, the Court proceeded to conclude as under: “68. Even in Easland Combines [(2003) 3 SCC 410 : (2003) 152 ELT 39] this Court held: (SCC pp. 424~25, para 31) “31. It is settled law that for invoking the extended period of limitation duty should not have been paid, short~levied or short~paid or erroneously refunded because of either fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any provision or rules. This Court has held that these ingredients postulate a positive act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty and/or take out a licence which is not due to any fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation.” 69. The question of limitation involves a question of jurisdiction. The finding of fact on the question of jurisdiction would be a jurisdictional fact. 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 Such a jurisdictional question is to be determined having regard to both fact and law involved therein. The Tribunal, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in not determining the said question, particularly, when in the absence of any finding of fact that such short~levy of excise duty related to any positive act on the part of the appellant by way of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked and in that view of the matter no show~cause notice in terms of Rule 10 could have been issued.“ (emphasis supplied) 12. From the above decisions, it is clear that existence of -- jurisdictional fact-- is sine qua non for the exercise of power. If the jurisdictional fact exists, only then the authority can proceed with the case and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It leaves no room for any doubt that to invoke the extended period, the Assessing Officer ought to show/ demonstrate the existence of any of the three circumstances set out in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. In this case, failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material particulars in our view would constitute the “jurisdictional fact“ for invoking extended period of limitation and failure to record the existence of the above jurisditional fact while invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, would vitiate the entire proceedings. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the following judgments, wherein it was held that failure to render a finding as to the existence of the above circumstance warranting invocation of the extended period in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgements: a) Duli Chand Singhania vs ACIT (269 ITR 192): ...that the reasons recorded for issue of notice showed that the satisfaction recorded therein wes merely about the escapement of income. There was not even a whisper of an allegation that such escapement had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment. Absence of this finding which is a “sine qua non“ for assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in a case falling under the proviso thereto, made the action taken by the Assessing Officer wholly without jurisdiction. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed. “ (emphasis supplied) b) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eigi Ultra industries Ltd. (296 ITR 573): 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 “...the reopening of the assessment under s. 148 beyond the period of four years at the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is established that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. in this case there is no finding that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts“. (emphasis supplied) c) Commissioner of Income~Tax v. Premier Mills Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 157: “6. In case where the assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income~tax Act, the reopening of the assessment under section 148 beyond the period of four years at the end of the relevant assessment year can be sustained only if it is established that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In this case there is no finding that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, all the material facts are available at the time of making original assessment. The Tribunal has correctly followed the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment reported in CIT v. Foramer France, [2003] 264 ITR 566, as well as this court judgment reported in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd., [2006] 286 ITR 674 and came to the correct conclusion.“ (emphasis supplied) d) CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 603: “6. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle of law and held as follows: “But whether recourse to section 147 could be made beyond four years is the real question in the present appeal. Circumstances for extending limitation beyond four years do not exist in the facts of the present case. As such on the ground of limitation assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 is bad. In the case of CIT v. Foramer France, [2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC), it was held that if there is no failure to file return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, issuance of notice beyond the period of four years is barred by limitation. In the case of CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd., [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad) it was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyound the period of your years” 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there was no suppression of facts by the petitioner, as the sale deed was produced for inspection in the first round prior to the order dated 28.12.2018 pursuant to the notice issued on 12.10.2017 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.It is submitted that in the absence of any tangible evidence to substantiate that the petitioner had failed to produce necessary information required for completing the assessment, invocation of larger period of limitation for the purpose of re-opening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to 01.04.2021 cannot be countenanced. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 10.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits, as the petitioner has not produced the copy of the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Stamps on 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 02.04.2018 before the Assessing Officer prior to the order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.10.2017. 11.It is submitted that since there are no record to substantiate that the petitioner had produced the copy of the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2018 of the Special Tahsildar, Stamps before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, it is clear that the petitioner has not furnished all the documents that were required for completing the assessment. 12.The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that a statement was recorded from the petitioner on 10.11.2017 and thereafter, a notice was issued on 22.03.2018 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is prior to the order of the Special Tahsildar, Stamps dated 02.04.2018. He would therefore submit that it is unlikely that the petitioner would have produce the copy of the Special Tahsildar, Stamps dated 02.04.2018 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.03.2018. 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 13.That apart, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not furnished the original of the sale deed, which would contain an endorsement regarding the stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Special Tahsildar, Stamps on 02.04.2018 and therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 14.It is further submitted that in any event, only the objection of the petitioner has been overruled, vide impugned order dated 18.02.2022. The petitioner is still entitled to establish these facts before the first respondent before the assessment is completed pursuant to the re-opening of the order. 15.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16.In my view, although the petitioner has not produced any documents to substantiate that the petitioner had enclosed the copy of the order of the Special Tahsildar, Stamps dated 02.04.2018 prior to passing of the assessment order under 14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 Section 143(3) on 28.12.2018, the fact remains that the reasons furnished by the respondents on 08.11.2021 and on 02.02.2022 indicate that the differential value for an amount of Rs.22,11,500/- was omitted to be considered indicating that the information was available either in the Form of order of the Special Tahsildar dated 02.04.2018 or in the Form of an endorsement in the sale deed, which would have been produced for inspection before the re-assessment was completed on 28.12.2018. The words used in the two communications dated 08.11.2011 and on 02.08.2021 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer make it clear that the information was available. However, it was not noticed by the Assessing Officer. 17.Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the impugned order dated 18.02.2022. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the first respondent overruling the objection of the petitioner against the re-opening of the assessment that was completed earlier on 28.12.2018 vide impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is set aside. 18.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, 15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 17.04.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm 16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J. mm W.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2022 17.04.2024 17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis "