9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of information received from DDIT(I & CI) regarding receipt of foreign remittance / foreign amount of Rs. 2,39,00,000/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued in response to the same the assessee filed income tax return declaring total income of Rs. 13,78,01,720/-. The AO after disposing of objection raised by the assessee in response to the statutory notice, and also going over the documents filed by the assessee held that the amount of Rs. 2,39,00,000/- is remained unexplained and accordingly added in the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee challenges the very impugned order on the legal ground as well as on merit. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case only two issues are involved i.e. one is the validity of the assessment order in pursuance to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and further addition of Rs. 2,39,00,000/- raising a demand of Rs. 3,07,95,482/-. The Ld. Counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te details before the ACIT, Kolkata and when the dispute has already been dealt with by the DDIT and ACIT, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO on the same set of issues are without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Ld. Counsel submits that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect, unfounded, vague, scanty and based on suspicions. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the assessee has been served with show cause notice dated 26.03.2022 along with copy of draft assessment order seeking compliance from the assessee on or before 28.03.2022 allowing time of two days only, even though the objection was raised by the assessee company and his objections were disposed of by the JAO/ AO and final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. The learned A.R submits that there was no speaking order passed on the objection raised by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the amount received in USD from January, 2016 to December 2016. The assessee received USD 11,10,975 has duly and properly recorded in the books of account as part of revenue as well as reimbursement of expenses and net amount has been reflected in the profit and loss account. The submission of the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee company submitted a reply and complied all the requisite details. viii) The AO without disposing of the aforesaid objection, issued notice u/s 142(1) of the act on 17.12.2021 by asking the assessee company to furnish or explain the quarries made. ix) The assessee company made complete compliance of the aforesaid notice dated 17.12.2021 and asked to dispose of his objection. x) The show cause notice dated 26.03.2022 along with copy of draft assessment order has been sent seeking compliance on or before 28-03-2022, the assessee made due compliance and filed an objection to the draft assessment order on 29.03.2022. xi) The final assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. 7. The first contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee with regard to legality of issuance of notices. His submission is that the assessee when file return of income in compliance to the notice of reopening of assessment order and if the assessee deserves to seek reason for issuance of notice, the AO bound to furnish reason within a reasonable time but no reason has been furnished by the authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) ltd. (supra) has been held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and income to the extent of Rs. 2,39,00,000/- as mentioned above has escaped assessment during the FY 2016-17 within the meaning of Section 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961. In order to assess or re-assess the said income which was escaped assessment as aforesaid and any other income which may come to the notice during the course of assessment/ reassessment proceedings, a notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 is required to be issued in this case. The Ld. CCIT-2, Kolkata vide F. No. CCIT-2/Kol/Approval of 148 cases/182/2020-21/1448 dated 30.03.2021 has accorded his approval for of potential cases for initiating proceedings u/s 148 with the following comments: "I am satisfied after perusing the material / information available with AO that income quantified in each case has escaped assessment. Approval granted in all cases where the date of information received is on or before 01.04.2019." 8. In the light of the reasons recorded we are looking to the details of transaction with Takeda Phar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the final assessment order, he added the same amount u/s 69A of the Act. We further find that when the assessee company raised objection and asked to furnish the reasons recorded, the same was intimated to the assessee company after a delay of seven months and a delay of seven months cannot be said to be a reasonable time as it has been held that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this context, our attention has been drawn by the assessee with regard to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors.. in WA No. 2521 of 2021 and CMP Nos. 16405 & 16406 of 2021. In the case of Cognizant Solutions(supra) the assessee had sought for the reasons on 27.04.2018, the AO did not furnish the reasons nor responded to the said letter but proceeded to issue the notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.08.2018. The reasons were communicated to the assessee on 30.08.2018. AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 21.08.2018 before communicating the reasons. On these facts, the Hon'ble Madras high Court held that " It may be true that no time limit has been prescribed for fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of expensive reagents but not recovery of freight. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P No. 3248 of 2022 passed in Kesar terminals & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs The DCIT and find that Hon'ble High Court in the similar situation has passed an order in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order is herein below: "9. On 4th August, 2021, the petitioner filed objections to the reopening of the assessment by raising several contentions. Without disposing of such objections, on 22nd November, 2021 the Petitioner was issued a notice u/s 142(1) directing it to justify its claim u/s 80IA with supporting documents. 10. On 26th November, 2021 the petitioner requested the respondents to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner before proceedings any further. The petitioner made a specific reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO. The petitioner also referred to this Court's decision in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT and Ors., which had provided that an assessee must be given a reasonable period of about four weeks to take any remedial course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
