9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice under Section 148 (as it stood then) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Income-tax Act) was issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2021. The petitioner did not file a revised return in response to the said notice. Instead, upon receipt of a notice under Section 142(1) on 24.09.2021, the petitioner submitted the original return as an enclosure to reply dated 27.09.2021. 3. The assessment order dated 29.09.2021 came to be issued in those circumstances, and such assessment order was challenged in W.P.No.23071 of 2021. By order dated 27.10.2021, this Court quashed the assessment order primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for re-assessment. After the said order was issued, the petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent requesting for reasons for re-opening the assessment and also forwarded various documents to the respondent. Eventually, the impugned assessment order dated 16.12.2021 came to be issued. 4. Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the assessment order on multiple grounds. The first ground of challenge was that reasons for re-op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3(SC), for the principle that the assessee should be provided an opportunity to cross-examine and that such opportunity should not be denied on the ground that such cross-examination would not be of use to the assessee. The said judgment was also relied upon to contend that a second remand should not be made. (v) The Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai v. Janak Shantilal Mehta, MANU/TN/6864/2020, particularly paragraphs 10, 12 and 16, for the proposition that the participation by the assessee in proceedings does not obviate the need for providing reasons for reopening the assessment. (vi) Sona Buildings v. Union of India, [2001] 119 Taxman 430 (SC), paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof, with regard to the necessity to act within the statutory time limit. (vii) North Eastern Electric Power Corporation v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, [2019] 104 taxmann.com 268 (Meghalaya), for the proposition that the return of income submitted in response to a notice under Section 142(1) should be treated as a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148. 5. These contentions were countered by Mr.A.P.Srinivas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on disputed questions of fact. 6. In light of the above contentions, the question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned assessment order should be interfered with in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The first ground on which the petitioner urged that interference is warranted is that reasons for re-opening the assessment were not provided. In GKN Driveshaft, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 148, as it stood then, and held that upon receipt of the return of income, reasons should be provided for re-opening the assessment if the assessee makes a request for such reasons. Section 148(1), as it stood then, is as under: "148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment- (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above said five assessment years." In these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference on the ground that principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts were not complied with. For the same reason, i.e. non-filing of return, and the consequential assessment on best judgment basis under Section 144, the impugned order does not call for interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2). 9. The next ground of challenge was by referring to the statements on which reliance was placed in the impugned order. In particular, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of M/s.Meenakshi Timber & Plywood. The statement of the said entity is referred to in paragraph 21 of the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
