9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sess the petitioner in the extended period of limitation for the Assessment Year 2010-11 (U.P.) The petitioner is a company engaged in executing works contract. Admittedly, the National Highway Authority of India had awarded a contract for two lane of 79 Kms. of road to another company Brijbhumi Expressway Pvt. Ltd. The said company Brijbhumi Expressway Pvt. Ltd. in turn awarded a sub-contract in favour of the petitioner for execution of the aforesaid contract. The petitioner received Rs. 6,57,62,400/- against the aforesaid sub-contract. The petitioner was subjected to regular assessment which proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 19.12.2013. In those assessment proceedings specific query had been raised by the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that notice suggests that the petitioner's assessing officer made a proposal to the aforesaid Additional Commissioner claiming that a perusal of the record revealed that amount of Rs. 4,46,64,605/- (that is included in and formed part of the total amount of Rs. 6,57,62,400/- considered in the original assessment proceedings) had escaped assessment at the hands of the assessee for reason of such amount representing consideration received for transfer of property and goods. Other than the aforesaid fact and reasoning, there is no mention of sanction being sought to reassess the petitioner for any other or further reason. At this stage instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioner to challenge the notice dated 09.02.2017. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing authority to entertain a change of opinion on the self same material. The proceedings are therefore, claimed to be completely lacking in jurisdiction. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a division bench decision of this Court in the Case of Writ Tax No. 48 of 2017 M/s Shivalik Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 2.5.2017, wherein this Court has held as below:- "In view of the above decision which is latest and which is passed by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court and any contrary view taken by the Division Bench of this Court or any observation in the earlier judgments, are of no use and cannot be considered to be good law. In the instant case admittedly neither in the notice nor in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard, he has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug and others reported in (2016) 91 VST 1 (SC), wherein in paragraph 32 of the judgement, it has held as below: "32. In the instant case, while the approval under section 21(2) of the Act could be granted on the subjective change of opinion, no proceeding under section 21(1) of the Act can be initiated on the ground of change in opinion of the assessing authority de-hors any material on record which justifies such change requiring reassessment. The requirement of 'reason to believe" in section 21(1) qualifies the phrase "change in opinion" as contained in section 21(2)." (emphasis supplied) Having consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order dated 19.12.2013. The observation and finding of the assessing officer do not appear abruptly by way of a mere conclusion but the same are preceded with a prior notice making a proposal to tax the aforesaid amount. The assessing officer having invited a reply, he then considered and accepted the same. Thus, he definitely formed an opinion that the amount was not taxable at the hands of the petitioner. In view of the above, a different conclusion that is now sought to be drawn on the aforesaid aspect clearly and only involves a change of opinion as no new material or information has come into possession of the revenue on the basis of which it could now allege that the aforesaid amount was taxable at the hands of the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise or exist in a vacuum. It must be shown that necessary facts and material exist on record leading to formation of 'reason to believe' that warrants initiation of reassessment proceedings, before sanction may be granted. In fact that is the most necessary aspect to be found existing in a case by the Additional Commissioner before he may proceed to grant sanction to the petitioner's assessing authority to reassess an assessee outside the normal period of limitation. To allow the revenue to obtain sanction in absence of any 'reason to believe' (as to escapement to tax of any turn over), would be to allow the revenue authorities to find new way to harass the assessee. It may only lead to numerous show cause notices bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
