Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3, the respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer is seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 200607. 3 On 28 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 200607, declaring a total income of Rs.60.21 lakhs. On 21 April 2008, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the petitioner's income at Rs.62.21 lakhs. 4 Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 200607. In response to the petitioner's request, the Assessing Officer on 10 September 2013 served a copy of the reasons recorded by him for the issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich form the basis of the reasons for reopening as recorded were all disclosed by the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008. Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 itself is without jurisdiction as there was no failure to disclose all facts necessary for assessment. It was also pointed out that there is a mistake in the reasons as the computation of income as filed along with the return discloses the net profit at Rs.1.27 Crores and not at Rs.60.80 lakhs as alleged. Besides, the details filed under Section 44AB of the Act were reflected in the computation of income as disallowable expenditure and added to the income of Rs.1.27 Crores disclosed in the computation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tation of income filed along with return of income indicates that the net profit has indeed been taken at Rs.1.27 Crores and not Rs.60.87 Lakhs as alleged in the reasons in support of the impugned notice. (c) All details as indicated in the reasons were furnished during the assessment proceedings under Section 44AB of the Act along with return of income. The computation of income filed along with return filed by the petitioner indicate that the amounts of expenditure which are sought to be added as disallowed were either furnished in the computation of income itself or subject of information sought for during the course of assessment proceedings as evidenced by letter dated 27 March 2008. In view of the above, it was submitted that the pre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Section 143(3) of the Act then no action for reassessment will be taken after the end of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there has been failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. From the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, it is evident that all material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment were on record during the assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Order dated 21 April 2008. It is, therefore, clear that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order dated 21 April 2008. Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is unsustainable. 10 In view of our above finding, there is no occasion to consider the petitioner's other contention that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the present proceeding initiated by the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is mere change of opinion. 11 In the above circumstances, we hold that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is an order without jurisdiction, as the requirement of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. The consequent order dated 8 January 2014 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates