Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (6) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n these two Writ Petitions with reference to two separate Assessment Years. The 1st Writ Petition in W.P.No.42729 of 2016 is with reference to the Assessment Year 2009-10 and W.P.No.42730 of 2016 is relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The facts and circumstances in both the Writ Petitions are similar and thus, this Court is inclined to pass a common order. 2.The petitioner is a Partnership Firm, incorporated in the year 2005 under the Partnership Deed dated 16.08.,2005 with the main object to carry on the business in real estate and such other activities described in the Partnership Deed. The petitioner filed their Return of Income for the respective Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Autho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entirety with reference to the informations, materials and books of accounts and the taxes produced by the petitioner/assessee, the very same particulars were furnished as reasons for reopening of assessment and therefore, the reopening of assessment is nothing but change of opinion and not falling within the ambit and scope of Section 147 of the Act. It is contended that the reopening is done beyond the period of four years, however, within a period of six years. Thus, the ingredients contemplated in the proviso clause to Section 147 of the Act is to be adhered to in its strict sense. The respondents have not found any tangible material or other wise and there was no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner and the details and pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the objections raised in this regard in their letter dated 16.08.2016. In their objections, the petitioner has categorically explained these aspects before the respondents. Specifically, it is contended by the petitioners that "the transaction with Coromandal Cables Private Limited does not involve any expenditure incurred by the assessee and hence, there is no requirement to report the said transaction in Column 18 of Form 3CD. The transaction between the assessee/the partnership firm and the company/CCPL was wrongly considered as related party transaction within the scope of the specified persons in Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The misconstruction of the provisions of Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s sought to be reopened by invoking Section 147 of the Act. Thus, sufficiency of the reasons cannot be gone into in a writ proceedings. The High Court cannot conduct a rowing enquiry in respect of the accounts details as well as the technicalities involved in respect of the transactions. All those aspects are to be considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the final order of reassessment. However, the High Court has to find out whether the reasons furnished for reopening of assessment amounts to change of opinion or not. In this regard, it is useful to extract reasons furnished by the 3rd respondent while disposing of the objections submitted by the writ petitioner which reads as under: "6.17. Hence, it is substantiated that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tangible material had come into the possession of the undersigned through the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, which is in public domain. The Assessing Officer had omitted to examine as to whether the related party transaction remain at arm's length while concluding the original assessment. There was no deliberation on this aspect and hence, failure to undertake proper enquiry resulted in excessive and unreasonable deduction to the assessee firm. The same requires correction and therefore, this reassessment proceedings is justified. Therefore, the request of the assessee firm to drop the reassessment proceedings is summarily rejected." 7.Perusal of the above findings of the 3rd respondent would be sufficient to hold that the requirements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates