TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the order rejecting the said objections, on the premise that there are fresh tangible materials available at the hands of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 - The said order was put to challenge before the learned Judge[ 2022 (1) TMI 1230 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] which was dismissed, by the order dated 10.01.2022 impugned herein. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge [ 2022 (1) TMI 1230 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] even prior to the passing of final order in the re-assessment proceedings. Judge has pointed out in the order impugned herein that the respondent has only indicated the reasons and justifications for reopening the assessment and has not come to a definite conclusion as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income filed by the appellant, vide order dated 07.10.2016. 3. While so, after five years, the respondent issued a notice dated 30.03.2021 to the appellant under Section 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment on the ground that certain income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2014-15 has escaped assessment. In response, the appellant filed their return of income on 16.04.2021 admitting the same income of ₹ 9,31,100/- and also requested the respondent to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, the respondent uploaded in the ITBA portal on 09.07.2021 the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Upon noticing the same, the appellant by its letter dated 12.07.2021 requested the respondent to drop su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2014-15 was very much within the legal provisions envisaged by the said sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and the assessee's claim that the reopening was bad in law, does not have any ground. Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 15.12.2021, the appellant filed W.P.No.186 of 2022, which was disposed of, by the learned Judge on 10.01.2022. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the same is extracted below: '15. In this case the assessment was made pursuant to returns filed under Section 139 of the IT Act. The scrutiny assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was based on the information in the returns. Whether there was a suppression of facts or not may be decided in the proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of this order. 6. Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that adherence to the mandate of First Proviso to Section 147 is compulsory and the Department is not discharging its onus under this proviso which only points to lack of apparent jurisdiction. Though the same ground was raised in the earlier W.P.No. 17262 of 2021 as well as in the present writ petition, the learned Judge did not consider the jurisdictional issue. On the other hand, it was observed in para 14 of the order dated 10.01.2022 that there are several disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India; and in para 16, it was further observed that it is still ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any fresh materials at the hands of the assessing officer and there is obviously lack of jurisdiction under proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Judge as well as the assessing officer. 7. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel submitted that the original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 07.10.2016, but later, on scrutiny of records, it was found that the amount debited by the appellant to the tune of ₹ 3,71,782/- towards P L account claiming prior period expenses was disallowable and it has to be brought to tax. Besides this, an amount of ₹ 13,03,703/- towards interest expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 186 of 2022, which was dismissed, by the order dated 10.01.2022 impugned herein. 10. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge dated 10.01.2022 in W.P.No.186 of 2022 even prior to the passing of final order in the re-assessment proceedings. The learned Judge has pointed out in the order impugned herein that the respondent has only indicated the reasons and justifications for reopening the assessment and has not come to a definite conclusion as to whether any case has been made out for re-computing the income of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge has granted liberty to the appellant to file reply/representation as to why the completed assessment proceedings deserves to be confirmed. Such a conclusion arri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
