TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to Section 147 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that there was non-disclosure on the part of petitioner. These facts have been brought to the notice of respondents by petitioner vide letter dated 10th October, 2019. Notwithstanding the same, the order on the objections dated 16th October, 2017 and impugned in the petition has been passed. Having heard the Counsels and considered the petition along with documents annexed thereto, the JAO has not verified the facts with the data available with him and simply on the basis of information received from DDIT, has issued the notice to petitioner. Therefore the condition precedent for taking action under Section 147 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much as petitioner, as recorded earlier, has provided the details regarding contract with SECPL. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 3543 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2022 - K. R. SHRIRAM N. J. JAMADAR, JJ Mr. Madhur Agarwal, a/w Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar, i/b Mind Confreres, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Respondents. (Video Conferencing) Oral Order:- 1. Petition is impugning notice dated 31st March, 2019, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) and order dated 16th October, 2019, disposing off petitioner's objections. No reply has been filed though time was granted on 18th December, 2019. 2. As could be seen from the impugned notice dated 31st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there must be cogent and clear indication in the reasons supplied, that in fact there was failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment. If the factum of failure to disclose can be culled down from the reasons in support of the notice seeking to reopen assessment, that will certainly not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The Court held However, if from the reasons, no case of failure to disclose is made out,then certainly the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148of the Act would be ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act . 5. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credited by petitioner to the profit and loss account and offered as income. Petitioner first filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 30th November, 2012 and thereafter filed revised return of income on 28th February, 2014 along with annual accounts of petitioner. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer had issued notice dated 17th December, 2014 under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act asking details of the sub-contract given by petitioner with details of the parties. Petitioner by its letter dated 5th January, 2015 submitted the details required by the Assessing Officer which included the receipt of ₹ 14,92,47,452/- from SECPL, which was credited as income in the relevant year. Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. 9. The Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Delhi). had laid down certain guidelines in matters of reopening of assessment and one of the guideline, which the revenue was directed to adhere to was, where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/or relevant portions of such report should be enclosed along with the reasons. We find that to the reasons recorded, revenue has not annexed the DDIT information received by them. To that extent, the revenue, therefore, is in breach of the orders of the Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Limited (supra). 10. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
