Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - excess premium charged by assessee - notice issued after the expiry of four years - assessee has followed Discounted Cash Flow method (DCF) and valued the shares at Rs. 1,015/- per share as per valuation report relied upon to justify the share premium. AO feels that the assessee could have charged premium of only Rs. 249.70 per share - HELD THAT:- The reason for reopening is nothing but a change of opinion. Admittedly scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 26th November 2016 after accepting loss shown in the returns. During the assessment proceedings, by a notice issued u/s 142(1) petitioner was called upon by respondent no. 1 to provide valuation report, bank statements and ITR of M/s. Kesar Motels Pvt. Ltd. for share premium received. This was provided by petitioner vide its Chartered Accountant’s letter dated 8th November 2016. Petitioner had also provided copy of ITR, valuation certificate and other details. After considering all these points, an assessment order dated 29th November 2016 came to be passed. This is a case of reopening after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Respondent had to show that there was failure to truly and fully disclose material facts. Not only petitioner has disclosed but respondent has also raised queries during the course of assessment proceedings and has passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. On the issue of the assessment order being silent, it is settled law that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised [Aroni Commercials Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (1) [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|