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 1351 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of a notice issued u/s 148 - petitioner had received payments under Sections 194 I and 194 J also, but it had not shown the said receipts in his Profit and Loss account and had not given any explanation for the same - HELD THAT:- As the reassessment has been ordered because the A.O. has recorded his reasons to believe that the petitioner had received payments under Section 194 J also, but it had not shown the said receipts in his Profit and Loss account and had not given any explanation for the same. The petitioner had not disclosed the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed by it and the actual amount received by it towards reimbursement. It had not submitted the details of expenses incurred by it for verification during the assessment proceedings. It did not produce any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred on behalf of the Principal Companies. Thus the petitioner did not make a “full and true” disclosure of all the material facts which resulted in an income having escaped assessment. In the instant case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by the Assessing Officer after an investigation was carried out and after going through the income tax return and other related documents of the petitioner and after forming reason to believe that the petitioner did not truly and fully disclose all the material facts, because of which income has escaped assessment. Thus the reassessment has been ordered upon discovery of apprehended untruthfulness of facts previously disclosed, which came to light after an investigation and, therefore, the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal [1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] does not support the petitioner and as per the law laid down in Srikrishna [1996 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the reassessment proceedings have rightly been initiated. The judgment passed by this Court has also been sought to be reviewed on the ground that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the judgments of Aventis Pharma Ltd. Versus ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Arun Gupta versus Union of India, [2015 (2) TMI 213 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been referred to and dealt with. This Court is not obliged to refer to each and every judgment forming part of a compilation of judgments submitted after conclusion of oral submissions, which judgments were not placed before the Court during oral submissions Therefore, this submission also stands rejected. We do not find any “error apparent on the face of the record” in the judgment and the order sought to be reviewed. The application for review of the judgment and order lacks merit and, is accordingly dismissed.
|