TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This was well before the expiry of time limit for making reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, notice shall be deemed to be a valid notice. The petitioner is bound to submit their objections, if they have chosen to do so. In the event of filing any such objections, same are to be considered by the respondents and the same is to be disposed of by passing a speaking order as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., vs ITO [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT ] Even before submitting the objections on the reasons furnished for reopening of assessment, the petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that reopening of assessment is made beyond the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 142 (2) on 12.05.2005. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142 (1) was issued on 18.07.2006 and assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) on 29.12.2006. 3. The petitioner not satisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), partly allowed the appeal on certain terms. The petitioner further preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue pertaining to the disallowance of claim under Section 80 IA in ITA No.979/Mds/2008. The Income Tax Department went on an appeal on the issue of replacement of machinery and allowance of bad debts, in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner company filed a reply dated 01.04.2011, requesting the first respondent to treat the original return filed on 29.10.2004 as return in response to notice under Section 148 and further requested for the reasons for reopening of assessment. The first respondent supplied the reasons for the reopening of assessment vide letter dated 19.04.2011, and the case was posted for further hearing. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the first respondent for reopening of assessment. 8. The contentions of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction is that the reassessment proceedings are invalid, since the reasons for reopening of assessment is communicated to the petitioner company beyond the six years period placing reliance upon the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner assessee to furnish reasons was complied with in letter dated 19.04.2011 and the respondents have furnished the following reasons for reopening of assessment: As requested, the reason for reopening the Assessment for Assessment year 2004-05 is as follows:- It was seen from the Profit Loss Account that a sum of ₹ 127.34 Lacss had been debited as VRS payment under the head of Salaries and Wages and a sum of ₹ 56,90,305/- had been added back in the computation statement. As per provisions of Section 35 DDA(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, where an assessee incurs any expenditure in any previous year by way of payment of any sum to an employee in connection with VRS, in accordance with any scheme or scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for calculation has resulted in incorrect determination of deduction U/s. 80 HHC and consequent short collection fo tax and surcharge along with interest U/s. 234-B to the tune of ₹ 24,55,728/-. 12. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent stating that the reopening is done beyond the period of six years and therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 is without jurisdiction. In this regard, the respondent in vide letter dated 14.11.2011 has stated that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for issuance of notice under Section 148 on 07.03.2011 and was served to the petitioner assessee on 16.03.2011. This was well before the expiry of time limit for making reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
