TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been no procedural irregularity available in these cases. Insofar as the reason for reopening is concerned, as has been stated above, the petitioner being the Indian Subsidiary Company of a foreign company called M/s.BTL Cyprus had earned income, according to the Revenue, and the said income has not been brought or rooted through the P L account i.e., the Profit and Loss Account of the relevant Financial Year and this has been unearthed subsequently only by the Revenue and prima facie , according to the Revenue, there has been a net freight of ₹ 29,50,53,532/- collected through the Indian Subsidiary company after allowing the expenditure, which according to the Revenue, is escaped assessment. Though it was vehemently con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, this Court feels that the impugned orders are to be sustained and the assessment process already commenced by invoking the Section 147 of the Act can go on. Appeal dismissed. - W.P.Nos.5597 & 5609 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos.5695, 5699, 5701 & 5702 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R.Suresh Kumar For the Petitioner (in both WPs) : Mr.S.P.Chidambaram For the Respondents (in both WPs) : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Assessment Year is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression of any such income or non-disclosure of such income. Therefore, the reason that, there has been a net freight of ₹ 29,50,53,532/- collected through the Indian Subsidiary i.e., the assessee company after allowing the expenditure has escaped assessment, cannot be the proper reason for reopening. 5. He would also submit that, if at all the petitioner company being the subsidiary at Indian soil is to be treated as a subsidiary company and earned through the transaction that, they had through the foreign company, the income if at all anything earned by the foreign company cannot be treated as an income of the subsidiary company, unless and until, the subsidiary company has earned such income and the same if it is not disclosed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment is to be assessed once again under the reopening process is to be ultimately decided after getting the defence and reply from the petitioner-assessee, for which, the petitioner assessee is expected to co-operate with the Revenue and if ultimate order is passed revising the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the remedy open to the petitioner-assessee is to prefer an appeal. Therefore, at the threshold, the power vested with the Revenue in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act cannot be curtailed and therefore, the present attempt made by the petitioner-assessee in filing these writ petitions challenging the reopening process including the order of rejection made on the objections raised by the petitioner are unte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 148 of the Act, pursuant to which, return was filed by the petitioner for the relevant assessment years, thereafter, reasons were sought for, reasons were given by the Revenue, those reasons have been objected. 11. Those objections having been considered, now, rejection orders have been passed by the respondent-Revenue. Therefore, absolutely there has been no procedural irregularity available in these cases. 12. Insofar as the reason for reopening is concerned, as has been stated above, the petitioner being the Indian Subsidiary Company of a foreign company called M/s.BTL Cyprus had earned income, according to the Revenue, and the said income has not been brought or rooted through the P L account i.e., the Profit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments, which are placed before this Court, especially on the reasons for reopening. 17. The procedural formalities have alreay been complied with in these cases as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts case and therefore, on that ground also, no interference is called for against the Revenue on these impugned orders. 18. Therefore, this Court feels that the impugned orders are to be sustained and the assessment process already commenced by invoking the Section 147 of the Act can go on. It is for the petitioner to make his defence by producing the records with regard to the objections and to the satisfaction of the Revenue Authorities and it is for them to consider and take ultimate decision as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
