TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ][e] of the Act by the Respondent No.2 on 25.06.2016 whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act were dropped. Thus, it can be held that once notice dated 25.06.2016 was issued by the Respondent No.2 to initiate reassessment proceedings, against the reassessment order dated 16.08.2014 passed under Section 39[2] of the Act, the said order dated 16.08.2014 ceases to operate, or in other words, it ceases to be in existence to revise the said order - The Respondent No.1 initiated the revisional proceedings by issuing notice dated 3.11.2016 to revise the order dated 16.08.2014 passed under Section 39[2] of the Act which has ceased to be operative on 25.06.2016 when notice was already issued by the Respondent No.2 under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od were accepted and proceedings initiated under Section 39 of the Act were dropped. Further, based on intelligence report dated 16.04.2013, reassessment order under section 39[2] of the Act for the period April 2010 to March 2011 was passed by the Respondent No.2 on 26.06.2013 wherein certain ineligible input credits were identified and an amount of ₹ 8,991/- was demanded which was remitted by the petitioner along with interest. Subsequently, reassessment order under section 39[1] of the Act was passed by the Respondent No.2 for the period April 2011 to March 2012 on 26.06.2013 and reassessment order under Section 39[1] of the Act was passed by the Respondent No.2 for the period April 2012 to March 2013 on 29.07.2013. The amount dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted his reply to the three reassessment notices dated 25.06.2016 on 29.07.2016. In the meantime, the first respondent-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notice dated 3.11.2016 invoking the power under Section 63-A of the Act, for the very same tax periods April 2010 to March 2013 on the very same ground that deduction of 30% as labour and like charges claimed by the petitioner has resulted in excess deduction and short payment of taxes. The petitioner replied to the said notice issued under Section 63-A[1] of the Act. After considering the reply, the Respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the orders revising the order of the Respondent No.2 dated 16.08.2014 passed under Section 39[2] of the Act for the tax periods April 2010 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in 1977 [39] STC 177. [b] V. JAGANMOHAN RAO v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 1970 [75] ITR 373. [c] M/s. KUNDAN LAL SRIKISHAN, MATHURA [U.P.] v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. AND ANOTHER reported in 1987 [1] SCC 684. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned orders, would submit that the Respondent No.1 is empowered to revise the order passed by the Assessing Authority dropping the proceedings under Section 39[2] of the Act. Dropping of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, it cannot be held that the Respondent No.1 had no jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed field or only with respect to a part of the matter covered by the initial assessment order. 12. Similarly, in the case of JAGANMOHAN RAO supra, the Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under: Section 34 in terms states that once the Income-tax Officer decides to reopen the assessment he could do so within the period prescribed by serving on the person liable to pay tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under section 22[2] and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section [2] of section 22 the previous under assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment is to vacate or set aside the initial order of assessment and to substitute in its place the order made on reassessment and that the result of re-opening of the assessment is that a fresh order for reassessment would have to be made in respect of all matters including those matters in respect of which there is no allegation of the turnover escaping assessment. The same principle should apply even to a case like the present one where an application for rectification is filed after the completion of the reassessment proceedings . 14. In the light of these Judgments, it is crystal clear that when once a notice is issued for the purpose of making reassessment, the assessment proceedings would be reopened and the order of assessment ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
