TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, 2017 and, the process of answering the evidence in detail can start only after the reassessment exercise takes place on the basis of the required disclosures which lie at the door step of the petitioners /assessee company. In the backdrop of above discussion, this Court finds no useful purpose to admit the writ petition. - WP 634 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - The Hon ble Justice Subrata Talukdar For the Petitioner : Mr.Ananda Sen, Adv. Mr.Niladri Kharra, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr.Soumitra Mukherjee, Adv. ORDER The Court: Parties are represented in the order of their names as printed above in the cause title. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation wing of the Income Tax department and the amounts of such transaction have also been specified. The reply dated 26th July, 2017 of the revenue /respondents was responded to by the petitioners/assessee company by its letter of 7th August, 2017 relying copiously on case law, which is also produced today, in support of the proposition that the conclusion regarding escaping of assessment to tax must be backed by sufficient reasons provided by the A.O. himself. The letter of 7th August, 2017 was in turn replied to by the revenue/respondents by a communication dated 22nd August, 2017 indicating therein the reasons for non‐acceptability of objection filed by the petitioners/assessee company and, reiterating that reopening of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same Income Tax department cannot be said to be of a nature which does not contribute to the belief of an A.O. that such income has escaped assessment. Mr. Mukherjee also relies upon the authority of Commissioner of Income Tax Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in The Supreme Court of India ‐ Civil Appeal No.6704 of 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23898 of 2011) to highlight that a rule of alternative remedy is not a mechanical one and, in the reassessment exercise the statutory redressal mechanism is still open. Moreover, the petitioners /assessee company are killing time being aware of the fact that the remedy for pleading the assessment /reassessment exercise under Section 147 as provided under Section 153 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary. Thus, questions of statues, agency, the benami nature of transactions, the nature of trading and like matters may not appear from the evidence produced, unless disclosed. It if be merely a question of interpretation of evidence by an Income‐tax Officer from whom nothing has been hidden and to whom everything has been fully disclosed, then the assessee cannot be subjected to section 34, merely because the Income‐tax Officer miscarried in his interpretation of evidence. But it is otherwise, if a contention which is contrary to fact, is raised and the Income‐tax Officer is set to discover the hidden truth for himself. In the latter case, there is suppression of material fact, or, in other words, that lack of full a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant company was an investment company dealing in stocks and shares, and knowing this for a fact, did not disclose the fact, the statement was neither full nor true, as it involved a suppression of a material fact necessary for the assessment. The explanation is quite obviously meant to reach an identical situation. The appellant company might have placed the evidence before the Income‐tax Officer, but the Income‐tax Officer had reason to believe that the disclosure was neither full nor true, because the fact that the company was an investment company trading in stocks and shares was not disclosed. The Income‐tax Officer in his report meant no more than this. He, therefore, felt that, prima facie, there was not only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
