9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of civil construction, civil maintenance work and manpower supply. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the petitioner had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 28.91 lacs. Such return was taken in scrutiny by Assessing Officer. He passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2008 determining total income at Rs. 30.95 lacs. To reopen such assessment, the respondent issued impugned notice which as can be seen was done beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons for issuing the notice : "Vide your legal representative's letter dtd. 23/01/2013, you have requested to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment in your case for A.Y. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/- 18 Pankajjkumar Civil & Grass cutting Rs.2,70,000/- 19 RJ Virdiya Civil & Grass cutting Rs.2,50,000/- 20 Rajnish Enterprise Construction and Maintenance Rs.2,83,584/- 21 Rang Bahadur Manpower supplier Rs.3,16,210/- 22 Vinod Ray Civil & Grass cutting Rs.1,03,4138/- 2. The total payments of Rs. 1,19,72,036/- was made without deducting the tax at source. As such income to the extent of Rs. 1.19,72,036/- was required to be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) since income to this extent has escaped to be taxed, the assessment has been reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. With reference tot he above, please support your submission on each point with necessary evidence on or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, these payments were subjected to deduction of tax at source which requirement the assessee had not complied. This figure of total payment of Rs. 1.03 crores, as per the reasons recorded, also emerge from the verification of the case records. In other words the fact that the assessee made these payments to various agencies was very much part of the record of the assessment. If that be so, we fail to see how the assessee can be blamed for nondisclosure of true and correct facts. 6. Quite apart from this, these payments came up for direct discussion before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 26.9.2008 and called upon the assessee to supply various details including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. This exchange of information between the assessee and the Assessing Officer though may not have direct bearing on the requirement of deducting tax at source in relation to such expenditure, undisputedly, these expenditures came pointedly under scrutiny of the Assessing Officer in connection with genuineness thereof. The fact that the Assessing Officer in his order of assessment dated 29.12.2008 made certain adhoc disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards such expenditure would only emphasize this aspect. 9. Thus all the expenditures to which the Assessing Officer now wishes to attach the requirement of deduction of tax at source, were not only part of the original returns filed by the assessee, came up for minute examination by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
