TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Petitioner has challenged notice dated 27.03.2017 issued by the respondentAssessing Officer to reopen the petitioner s assessment for the assessment year 2010-11. The petition arises in following background. 2. Petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner had filed the return of income on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 29,740/. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) and accepted without scrutiny. To reopen such assessment, impugned notice came to be issued. For such purpose, the Assessing Officer has recorded following reasons: In this case, return of income was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AABCJ 6245N 5,00,000/- Nakshatra Business P Ltd. (Hema Trading Co. P Ltd.) AABCH4279 G 5,00,000/- Olive Overseas P Ltd. (Realgold Trading Co. P. Ltd.) AACCR 4512 K 5,00,000/- TOTAL 30,00,000/- Thus, the introducers of the share application money are found to be bogus by investigation wing. It is also seen (as tabulated below) from the returns of income (ROI)( of assessee company that in preceding and following assessment years, the assessee does not have profits to warrant such large amount of share application money. A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action. According to the assessee however, the company had not received such share application money of ₹ 30 lakhs from the said five entities during the relevant period. The assessee in the objections therefore raised a specific ground in this respect calling upon the Assessing Officer to supply any contrary material. 4. Such objections were however rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 28.10.2017. Unfortunately in such order, the Assessing Officer did not address this specific factual contention of the petitioner. Be that as it may, when such objections were rejected, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. We have heard learned advocates for the parties. Notice for reopening has been issued in a case where no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ney of ₹ 10 lakhs from one Anchal Properties P. Ltd. The petitioner has taken such a ground in the objections. Such ground reads as under: ( II) Your goodself has derived satisfaction that assessee has failed to disclose fully truly material facts. Your goodself has without any material evidence on records derived satisfaction that assessee has received share application money of ₹ 30,00,000/during the year under reference from 5 entities. Your goodself has mentioned that assessee has failed to disclose fully truly material facts. Assessee submits that as assessee has not received share application money of ₹ 30,00,000/during the year under reference as alleged by you hence question of failu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder disposing objections, he referred to this ground of the assessee at considerable length, but when it came to dealing with this ground, he was totally ambivalent. He proceeded on general legal principles on the issue of his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. His duty was to examine this factual ground raised by the assessee and to deal with it in proper prospective. At any rate, the Assessing Officer cannot approach the objections with a preset mind to dismiss it at any cost, nor can he dispose of the objections mechanically which is precisely what he did in the present case. Very clearly the Assessing Officer has exhibited a certain callousness in disposing of the objections. 7. This callous attitude on his part, does not stop a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
