TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amalgamation, which was approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by order dated 14.08.2007. For the assessment year 2011-12, the Return of income filed by the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and order under Section 143(3) read with Section 92 CA of the Act was passed after making disallowances. The assessment proceedings were completed based on full and true disclosure of all relevant details. Thereafter, the respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018, alleging that the income has escaped assessment. The petitioner vide letter dated 09.05.2018 filed return of income in response to the impugned notice and sought a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The respondent issued the reasons vide letter dated 06.07.2018. According to the respondent, the petitioner has made certain transactions in the PAN of amalgamating Company [M/s.Areva T&D Instrument Transformers Private Limited (AITPL)] for the assessment year 2011-12 and thus, there was reason to believe income chargeable to tax has escapped assessment. The respondent reopened the assessment merely based on suspicion and not based on any tangible material on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. The petitioner failed to file objections for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the presumption is that the petitioner does not have objection to the reopening. Hence the respondent proceeded to next step in the process of reopening and passed the impugned order of assessment. 5. Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a clear failure on the part of the respondent to follow the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case. He further submitted that the reasons assigned are bereft of material details and therefore, without furnishing those material details, as sought for by the petitioner through their communication dated 29.08.2018 and 17.09.2018, the Assessing Officer is not justified in passing the impugned order of assessment. It is his further contention that only when those details are furnished, the petitioner would be in a position to file an effective objection to the reasons for reopening. He further contended that apart from the above contention on the question of violation of the principles of natural justice, the form 26AS information is already available on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the PAN of amalgamated company M/s.Areva T & D Instrument Transformers Private Limited for the AY 2011-2012 (FY 2010- 2011) as under:- S. No. FY Information Code Information Description TDS deducted TDS deposited 1 2010-2011 TDS-94J Rs. 5,19,146/- fees for professional or technical services (Section 194) 61,925/- 61,925/- 2 2010-2011 TDS-94C Rs. 3,64,41,881/ - payment to contractors (Section 194C) 7,28,837/- 7,28,837/- 3 2010-2011 TDS-94C Rs. 5,77,402/- payment to interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) 58,634/- 58,634/- M/s.GE T & D India Limited has made some transactions in the PAN of the amalgamated company after 5 years of amalgamation. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, the assessment needs to be reopened u/s.147 of the IT Act, 1961."" 9. The petitioner, no doubt, has not filed their objections immediately and on the other hand, through their communication dated 29.08.2018 and 17.09.2018, addressed to the respondent, requested to share the partywise details of transactions referred to in the communication dated 06.07.2018 so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o e-filing/TRACES portal, which document alone would reflect the partywise details. Therefore, it is necessary for the respondent to furnish those details to the assessee so as to enable them to file their objections in effective manner. 12. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case, the Apex Court has laid down the principles as to how the reopening of the assessment should be proceeded with, commencing from the issuance of notice under Section 148 onwards. It is made clear therein that the reasons for reopening must be provided to the assessee, who in turn is entitled to make his objections on such reasonings and that the Assessing Officer has to pass a reasoned order on such objections. In this case, I find that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass an order of assessment directly without following the procedures laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case. It is true that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to issue 143(2) notice after waiting for sometime from the date of issuance of 148 notice. But at the same time, it is to be seen that before passing the impugned order of assessment, the above two communications of the pe....