9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances that the court restrained the respondent/revenue from passing final orders in the "fresh impugned reassessment proceedings" during the pendency of the writ action. 4. To adjudicate upon the instant writ action, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 4.1. The petitioner, formerly known as Priti Mercantile Company Ltd., filed its Return of Income (ROI) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 on 30.09.2011. The ROI declared the petitioner's income as Rs. 1,52,47,940/-. Concededly, the said ROI was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. 4.2. Nearly four years later, a notice dated 17.09.2013 was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act [hereafter referred to as the "2013 notice"]. 4.3. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed a ROI, which was similar to the return filed on 30.09.2011. 4.4. It appears that the reasons recorded by the AO for triggering reassessment proceedings were supplied, not along with the notice issued under Section 148, but thereafter. 4.5. Upon receipt of the reasons to believe recorded by the AO for triggering the reassessment proceedings, the petitioner filed its objections dated 26.11.2013, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TGFL. (iii) Copy of the assessment order passed in TGFL's case for AY 2011-12. (iv) Copy of the financial statement for FY 2010-11 along with the Director's report. (v) Copy of the Auditor's report. (vi) Copy of the company's master data. 5.7. Although the aforementioned information was furnished by the petitioner, it received another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2015. Via this notice, an explanation was sought from the petitioner with regard to business carried out by it with various persons/entities including TGFL. 5.8. Although the record shows that the petitioner filed a reply to the said notice, the reply doesn't bear any date. The petitioner, broadly, reasserted the stand which it had taken earlier that it had received Rs.50 lakhs by way of loan from TGFL. 5.9. The record reveals that the AO framed an assessment order dated 30.03.2015, whereby it accepted the stand of the petitioner and thus made no addition concerning the purported accommodation entry said to have been received by it. This order has been framed under section 143(3), read with section 147 of the Act. 6. Significantly, the said assessment order adverts to the notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention that since the query raised was not dealt with in the second notice i.e., the 2018 notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, it was viable in law. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, after having filed its return for AY 2011-12, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, was subjected to reassessment proceedings with the issuance of the 2013 notice. The trigger for the same was the accommodation entry said to have been received by the petitioner from Mr S.K. Jain. This is evident upon perusal of the reasons to believe framed by the AO which form the basis for issuing the 2013 notice. For the sake of convenience, the reasons, as recorded by the AO, are extracted hereafter: "The assessee is a accompany and filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 showing total income of Rs. 1,52,47,940/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. The department has got information from office of DDIT(Inv.), Unit Vl(2), New Delhi wherein it has been stated that Priti Mercantile Company Ltd., has received an accommodation entry from Transnational Growth Fund Ltd., of Rs. 50,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Ltd.) is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- in F.Y. 2010- 11. Relevant information was also requested from Central Circle-32, New Delhi (AO of the S.K. Jain Group) and the same was received and perused. As per the information received, it is mentioned that during the search, various documents pertaining to various concerns (Companies as well as Firm) were seized from the premises of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain. These seized documents included blank unsigned as well as blank signed cheque books, Acknowledgement of filling of Returns of these companies, User Ids and Password of these companies from e-filing of their return, Bank A/c Opening & Closing letters, Authorization letters for attending the assessment proceedings, books of account in tally format as well as in the format required for filing a return, etc. It is further mentioned that, Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain had also kept a meticulous record of cheques/RTGS issued from the bank accounts of these concerns to various beneficiary parties (apparently in lieu of the cash) that had been regularly received by them over a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of accommodation entries described above and has received a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the F.Y. 2010-11 and the genuineness of the credits received are doubtful." [Emphasis is ours] 12. The record shows, something that we have noticed above, that the notice dated 15.01.2015 issued to the petitioner was accompanied by two (2) sheets of paper, which, inter alia referred to the accommodation entries made available to the petitioner. The assessment order was thereafter framed in the first round, i.e., on 30.03.2015. Therefore, according to us, the material that was examined by the AO in the second round was no different from that which was examined when the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 was passed. 13. As indicated above, the allegation with regard to the source of the accommodation entry and the amount was also similar, both when the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 was passed and when the 2018 notice was issued. Therefore, according to us, it is a clear case of change of opinion. 14. Mr Maratha's submission that the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 did not deal with the query raised with regard to the accommodation entry and the material furnished, in our opinion, is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax-Vi, New Delhi v. Usha International Ltd., 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 673. 17.1 The court in paragraph 13 of the said judgment has made the following apposite observations with regard to when would a case be hit by the principle of change of opinion: "13. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid position that: (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change of opinion; (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and is decided in favour of the assessee. Reassessment proceedings in the said cases will be hit by principle of ―change of opinion. (3) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find any ground or reason to make addition or reject the stand of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
