3.1 According to the petitioner, on 29.12.2010, an order of assessment was passed for the assessment year 2008-09, arriving at a taxable income of Rs.1,52,01,770/-. Subsequently, a notice dated 27.03.2014 was issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to file return as if no return was filed or a part of transaction was unreported. The petitioner sent a reply stating that the return was already filed on 02.08.2008. Thereafter, on 28.04.2014, a notice was issued proposing to reopen the assessment stating that the petitioner was wrongly granted exemption for sale of agricultural lands. The petitioner replied to the above notice by letter dated 10.06.2014 stating that the reopening cannot be permitted by law on the basis of change of opinion of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent replied to the said letter after nine months on 23.03.2015 stating that the earlier order was passed without enquiry. In the meantime, in the personal hearing, it was also informed that Padur village is an agricultural village and population is less than 10,000/- and hence the asset cannot be treated as capital asset and earlier assessment was passed after due enquiry. A representation to that effect was also submitted by the petitioner on 02.01.2015. However without considering the same, relying upon certain judgments, the objections of the petitioner was rejected.
