TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Content of which has been extracted in the reasons given for reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 vide communication dated 26.08.2020. Thus, the income for the respective assessment years have escaped assessment. Returns were filed contrary to the undertaking given by the petitioner pursuant to search that was commenced under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.11.2014. WP dismissed. - Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner (in all W.Ps.) : Mr.R.V.Easwar learned Senior Counsel for Mr.N.V.Balaji For the Respondents (in all W.Ps.) : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER By this common order, all the three Writ Petitions are being disposed of. 2. In W.P.No.953 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the first respondent disposing of the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the assessment vide notice dated 03.12.2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act, 1961) for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 3. By the Impugned Order dated 10.01.2020, the first respondent has justified the reopening of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f imagination can it be called as a case of suspicion and the objection of the assessee is not acceptable. 7. Another objection made by the assessee was that the satisfaction of the PCIT is merely to meet the statutory requirement and not an objective satisfaction based on material on record. In this connection, the statutory requirement being approval of the PCIT is met. Further, with regard to the objective satisfaction, the PCIT has clearly written that perused the reasons above and I am satisfied it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act. Approval is granted for issue of notice u/s 148 . Thus it is evident that objective satisfaction of the PCIT is very much there. Therefore the objection of the assessee on this count is also not acceptable and is rejected. 8. The objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of assessment is disposed off accordingly. 4. In W.P.No.16497 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under section 143 (2) of the IT Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 5. In W.P.No.16497 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material evidences is not a sine qua non for reopening in such a case. 5. The assessee has also objected for not recording the satisfaction that there is failure on the part of the assessee. In the satisfaction note, there is a clear mention that the assessee failed to include in its return of income, the additional income of Rs. 200 crores admitted at the time of search. 6. Another objection is that there is no reason to believe but there is only suspicion. In this connection, it is reiterated that in the satisfaction note, there is a clear mention that the amount of Rs. 200 crores has not been offered to tax for the relevant assessment year and the reason to believe has been recorded. This clearly is a belief and by no stretch of imagination, can it be called as a case of suspicion and the objection of the assessee is not acceptable. 7. As regards, the objection quoting 3rd proviso to sec. 147, it may be noted that the reopening is with regard to the omission to tax the amount of Rs. 200 crores offered in the course of search as over and above the certified accounts, and the already taxed amount of Rs. 80 cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the amount of Rs. 77.80 Crores has accrued during the financial year 2013- 2014, the same has to be taxed in the relevant Assessment Year 2014-2015. On going through the records for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, it is seen that the said amount of Rs. 77.80 Crores has not been offered to tax during the year. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income has escapted assessment for Assessment Year 2014-2015 within the meaning of explanation to Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 2. A satisfaction as above was recorded by the undersigned and the same was endorsed and approved by Pr.CIT, Central-1, Chennai on 29.11.2019. In this case, during the course of search, the assessee company admitted Rs. 200.00 crores as additional income for the AY 2015- 16. On going through the return of income filed for this year, it is seen that the assessee has admitted an amount of Rs. 273.46 crores. This amount of Rs. 273.46 crores represents the taxable income as per the certified accounts and does not include the additional income of Rs. 200.00 crores admitted at the time of search. In the assessment, instead of an addition of Rs. 200.00 crores, an addition of Rs. 80,53,26, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2014-2015 on 27.09.2014. For the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the return was filed on 30.09.2015. For the respective Assessment Years, the petitioner had returned the following amounts as the taxable income:- Assessment Year Amount 2014-2015 Rs.153 Crores 2015-2016 Rs.273.46 Crores 13. As against an offer that was made in their communication dated 05.01.2015 and 16.01.2015, this led to series of correspondences being exchanged between the petitioner and the Assessing Officer. 14. Earlier, the issue relating to refund of service tax was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court on 24.10.2013 during the Financial Year 2013-2014 for the relevant Assessment Year 2014-2015. 15. In the statement that was given on 09.01.2015, the petitioner undertook to pay Rs. 203 crores over and above the amount offered for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 over and above the income for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 for the entire group. Paragraph 2 of the letter dated 09.01.2015 reads as under:- However, to cover unintended omissions and solely with the view to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying out detailed working by their repeated offer; that no duress or coercion was substantiated; that the explanation for the shortfall in admission attributed to non-receipt of service tax is not plausible, for the said issues was not the subject matter of search and investigation; that the doctrine of estoppel applies to the appellant's case; and in view of the judicial approval accorded by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of B.Kishore Kumar (supra) as endorsed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the grounds of the appellant on the addition of Rs. 80,53,26,740/- are liable for dismissal and of the view that no interference by the undersigned is called for in respect of the AO's addition. Accordingly, the grounds are dismissed. 19. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in further appeal in ITA No.1081/Chny/2019, allowed the petitioner s appeal insofar as addition of Rs. 77.80 Crores out of Rs. 80,53,26,740/- and held that if at all service tax refund of Rs77,80,00,000/- was concerned, it was to be brought to the tax during the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 20. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal thus concluded that servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of service tax refund accrues to the assessee in the assessment year 2015- 2016 automatically. Moreover, the assessee also filed an undertaking before the Assessing Officer by way of an affidavit that the actual receipt of the service tax refund will be offered to tax, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer was not factually and legally correct to bring the same to tax in the assessment year in which the assessee has not actually received the refund or accrued. Under the above facts and circumstances, the addition to the extent of Rs. 77.80 Crores made by the Assessing Officer to bring the service tax refund under tax net stands deleted. 4.3 With regard to the balance addition of Rs. 2,73,26,740/- [Rs.80,53,26,740-Rs.77,80,00,000] towards variation in additional income admitted, the Id. Counsel for the assessee has not advanced any argument or the assessee has furnished any material evidence on record. When the assessee was asked to explain with regard to the short fall in income that was admitted under Section 132(4) of the Act being Rs. 80,53,26,740/- before the Id.CIT(A), the assessee has explained about service tax refund of Rs. 77.80 Cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
