TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction in the value of inventory was not considered during the course of scrutiny and therefore the notice has been issued to reopen the assessment. As find substantial merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. The assessment is driven based on the returns filed by an assessee and therefore it is for the assessee to make correct computation of income for the purpose of payment of income tax. If there is any irregular claim for deduction/exemption, the respondent assessing officer is well within his rights to reopen the assessment as long as which reopening of the assessment is not on account of any change of opinion as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court has followed by all the High Courts. It cannot be stated that the impugned notice has been issued merely on account of change of opinion. Further, the petitioner has also not clearly explained how a reduction in the value of inventory was made at the time of filing of the returns. In these proceedings, the petitioner is hiding behind the cloak of the few ratios of the Court which may not be applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, In my view, the respondent Income tax Department was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.1019 of 2017. The Writ petition was partly allowed by an order dated 07.04.2017 by directing the respondent to pass a speaking order in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.[(2003)1 SCC72]. 4.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.No.463 of 2017 before the Division Bench which came to be disposed by an order dated 25.04.2018. The Division Bench upheld the order of the the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the said order dated 25.04.2018 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.463 of 2017, the impugned speaking order has been passed and served on the petitioner purportedly in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors. referred to supra by over ruling the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the Assessment under Section 143(3) read with Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents have not made out a case for re-opening the Assessment. It is based on change of opinion and that there are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights in schedule A to C property. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment orders which came to be passed on 23.03.2015 clearly records that the case was discussed with authorized representative of the petitioner with reference to the difference in the value of the opening stock of the current year with the closing stock during the previous year and the assessment was completed after accepting the total income arrived by the petitioner for determing its tax liability. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that there is no case made out of reopening of the assessment merely because there was a change in the opinion. It is submitted that since the impugned notice for reopening of the assessment was based on change of opinion, it was sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. He therefore prays for allowing the writ petition. 11.Defending the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tripartite agreement dated 12.03.2012 not only deals with relinquishment of the rights over the property to an extent of 14,958.66 sq.ft. Out of 30.056.40, but also talks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,265/- towards expense. 17. This according to respondent the Income Tax Department had not been substantiated by the petitioner when the assessment order was passed on 23.03.2015. This was the reason also the reasons communicated to the petitioner by the respondent on 5.2.2016 pursuant to the impugned Notice dated 16.10.2015. It is noticed that even in the reply given to the notice pursuant to the communication of the reasons for reopening the assessment also, the petitioner has not clearly explained as to how the value of inventory was reduced while computing the income. 18. According to the petitioner, during the financial year 2011-12 a Tripartite agreement dated 12.3.2012 was signed with the landlord and the new developer namely Nithya Flats wherein the petitioner had agreed to give up all the rights over the construction in favour of the said Nithya Flats in lieu of assignments of rights over two flats as in schedule D by separate sale deed in favour of the petitioner or its nominee measuring a total extent of 2157 ft . According to the petitioner s pursuant to the above, the petitioner subsequently, realised an estimated sum of ₹ 54,77, 848/- during the subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent assessing officer is well within his rights to reopen the assessment as long as which reopening of the assessment is not on account of any change of opinion as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court has followed by all the High Courts. 25. It cannot be stated that the impugned notice has been issued merely on account of change of opinion. Further, the petitioner has also not clearly explained how a reduction in the value of inventory was made at the time of filing of the returns. In these proceedings, the petitioner is hiding behind the cloak of the few ratios of the Court which may not be applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, In my view, the respondent Income tax Department was justified in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is still open to the petitioner to substantiate its defence before the respondent by filing suitable reply and explain how the computation of the income was made for the purpose of payment of tax and thus, the taxable income was correctly determined. 26. Therefore, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition. I however give liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
