9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;) dated 30.03.2021 and order dated 23 February 2022 rejecting the objections to the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner filed its return of income at Rs.10,60,890/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny assignment vide notice under section 142 (1) of the Act dated 29 May 2015. The petitioner vide letters dates 15 June 2015 and 17 August 2015 filed details and also submissions. On 19 October 2015, an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act was passed assessing income at Rs. 13,92,550/-. 4. On 30 March 2021 i.e. after a period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year, the respondents issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned notice is without jurisdiction and is required to be quashed and set aside. No other submissions have been made other than what is stated hereinabove. Submissions of the Respondent: 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that there has been a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. He submitted that the difference between AIR details and the figures appearing in profit and loss accounts have not been disclosed in the course of the regular assessment proceedings. He further submitted that giving details to the audit party would not absolve the petitioner from its failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.3,78,00,928/-. The assessee has not disclosed rental income of Rs. 1,27,31,818/- In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs. 1,72,72,615/-has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2013-14, within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and correct income." 9. The reopening is sought on following four issues :- (i) Difference between the AIR details and profit and loss account towards total receipt amounting to Rs. 43,98,899/-; (ii) Excess depreciation claim on printers of Rs. 8,41,898/-; (iii) Non-deduction of TDS on staff salary; (iv) Difference of figures in rent as per profit and loss account and AIR details Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown in the profit and loss account and the AIR details. In the objections filed by the petitioner also, there is no explanation on this issue. Further, our attention was drawn to page 232 of the rejoinder, which is a statement showing a reconciliation of TDS with that of 26 AS format. Even in this reconciliation, we could not find any mention of a difference in the rent being explained or disclosed during the assessment proceedings. We had raised a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner on this disclosure issue, but the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any document. Therefore, in our view, insofar as the difference in rental income is concerned as per the profit and loss account and the AIR details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifference in rental figures. 14. The second item concerns the non-deduction of TDS on staff salary. In the letters dated 15 June 2015 and 17 August 2015 filed by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings, there are no details concerning the deduction of TDS on salary. The letter dated 17 August 2015 states that the ledger copy of the salary expenses is attached. However, such ledger copy has not been annexed in the writ petition, but the same appears to have been annexed with the rejoinder. On a perusal of the salary ledger account, it is unclear whether the TDS has been deducted. There is no mention in the objections on this issue and, therefore, the only inference which could be drawn is that there has been no disclosure during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar in the reasons recorded can be found in the said statement. Therefore, insofar as this issue is concerned, in our view, the petitioner has prima facie disclosed and explained the difference in the course of the assessment proceedings, and, therefore, reassessment of this account might be vulnerable. However, since we have upheld the reassessment proceedings on the other two items, the petitioner will be free to explain the reconciliation during the reassessment proceedings. 17. Therefore, the overall challenge of reopening the assessment fails. This is not a case where the Revenue has not adhered to the jurisdictional parameters. 18. In view of the above, we dismiss the petition. Rule is discharged. Interim reliefs granted are vacated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
