9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 2. This appeal filed by the writ petitioner - assessee is directed against the order dated 23.6.2021 in W.P.No.8050 of 2015. 3. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant - assessee challenging he order passed by the second respondent dated 02.3.2015, by which, the objections filed by the assessee for the reopening of assessment for the year 2007-08 were rejected and the assumption of jurisdiction by the second respondent was sustained. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated vide order dated 02.3.2015 after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year 2007- 08 would attract the Proviso under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahindra Ltd. [reported in (2018) 404 ITR 1]. 6. By relying upon the above decisions, the assessee contended that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. It was also contended that the reopening of assessment was beyond four years and that therefore, unless there was a fresh tangible material, the reassessment proceedings could not have been initiated. It was further contended that neither in the reasons for reopening nor in the counter, the Assessing Officer brought out any fresh tangible material for sustaining the reassessment proceedings. 7. It is seen that the appellant filed notes on submission, both on facts as well as pointing out the legal position. 8. In the counter filed by the second respondent in the said writ petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the assessment (reassessment) proceedings by defending their case in a manner known to law. Thus, we also find that the legal issue, which was raised by the assessee questioning the assumption of jurisdiction, has not been considered and decided by the learned Single Judge. 11. We have perused the original assessment order dated 27.7.2009 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Before passing such an order, the Assessing Officer had discussed the case with the assessee and sought for further particulars, which were furnished by the assessee along with their letter dated 19.6.2009. 12. In annexure III, the relevant documents concerning the subject issue had been furnished by the assessee namely with regard to the OTS of loan liability, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was taken long time before and they paid interest for certain period, that there was a separate loan agreement whenever we got the term loan and that the loans availed were used for purchase of machinery and hence, Section 28(iv) of the Act was not applicable. The assessee further contended that they had not claimed any deduction in the assessment (profit and loss account) by taking term loan, that it was not a trading liability and that waiver of the loan could not be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act. Thus, the assessee submitted that the amounts referable to loans received for purchase of capital assets would not constitute a trading liability and accordingly, Section 41(1) was not attracted. 15. The Assessing Officer, while comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
