TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come filed on 30.07.2009, as return in response to the notice under Section 147. Whatever was placed before the Assessing Officer through their authorized representative's letter dated 30.12.2011, cannot be taken to be full and true disclosure pertaining to the transactions with S.Nagarajan. As satisfied with the reasons assigned for reopening of assessment is just and proper and no opinion was formed during the assessment proceedings dated 30.12.2011, for it to be termed as a 'change of opinion', more so, when the assessee has failed to fully and truly disclose all the materials necessary for its assessment. Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Writ Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. - decided against assessee. - Writ Appeal No.2563 of 2018 And C.M.P.Nos.20763 & 20766 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2018 - Mr.Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar For the Petitioner : Mr.Vijayaraghavan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan Ramamani For the Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal, by the appellant/assessee, is directed against the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of ₹ 2.75 crores from Sri.L.S.Abhinesha Babu for purchase of property through his bank account, the sources for such advances made require to be verified. 4. The appellant/assessee filed her objections dated 06.05.2016, inter alia contending that during the course of first reassessment proceedings, the assessee has produced copies of bank statements and other records including the sources of all deposits made in the account; the account of S.Nagarajan also figured in the details of receipts and payments submitted; reassessment was completed after due verification of all payments and proposal to reopen to re-verify the source of advances given by S.Nagarajan amounts to change of opinion; no new material is available to conclude that income has escaped assessment for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act; there has been full disclosure of all material facts by the assessee based on which assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and by applying proviso to Section 147, reopening is barred by limitation. 5. The respondent considered the objections and passed an order dated 26.05.2016, rejecting the objections filed by the assessee on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s necessary for its assessment. 8. Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan and Ramamani, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee while reiterating the grounds raised in the Writ Petition has drawn the attention of this Court to the letters written by the authorized representative of the assessee, dated 29.12.2011 and 30.12.2011 and the cash flow statement and the assessment order, dated 30.12.2011, wherein the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee was asked to file copies of bank accounts and other evidences in support of her claim and the authorized representative has filed details of receipts and payments in respect of the previous year and stated that there are sufficient cash withdrawals prior to the cash deposits of ₹ 93,00,000/-. Therefore, it is submitted that all details were considered in the first reopening of the assessment and the reasons for reopening does not place any omission on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose any material for its assessment and only states that the source for advances has to be verified, which was verified in the earlier proceedings and therefore, the impugned re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. It is further submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee all pertain to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act followed by reopening under Section 147, whereas in the instant case, the initial intimation was under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, no opinion was formed when the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2011, was formed by the Assessing Officer with regard to the advances given to the said S.Nagarajan. Therefore, it is submitted that the reopening of the assessment was valid and the learned Writ Court was correct in dismissing the Writ Petition. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The law on the subject, namely, what would be a valid reopening proceeding under Section 147 of the Act is fairly well settled as on date. The earliest of the oft quoted decision is that of the Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited (supra) arising under 1922 Act, questioning the correctness of the reassessement done under Section 34 of the said Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nna Nagar Branch, Chennai to the tune of ₹ 93,00,000/-. Further, the assessee was asked to file copies of bank accounts and other evidences in support of her claim. 17. The assessing officer has recorded that the authorized representative of the assessee filed details of receipts and payments in respect of the previous year and stated that there were sufficient cash withdrawals prior to the cash deposit of ₹ 93,00,000/-. One fact, which is visibly clear, from what has been recorded in the assessment order, is that the details called for pertaining to the savings bank account maintained in Axis Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai and the details, which were furnished by the assessee also pertain to the said amount. Therefore, merely because a cash flow statement was appended to the letter of the assessee's authorized representative dated 30.12.2011, cannot be taken to be establish that the assessee has made full and true disclosure of the advance paid to S.Nagarajan. One more factor which has weighed in our minds is even in the first reassessment proceedings dated 30.12.2011, there was a short fall of ₹ 10,50,000/-. Therefore, we hold that the assessee did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
