9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 339 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order passed by the Joint Commissioner u/s 144A - petitioner prays that they may be permitted to withdraw the application filed u/s 144A - Held that - As no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner if permitted to approach the Assessing Officer and raise all the issues. In fact Section 144A is a provision which empowers the Joint Commissioner to give guidance to the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. Thus, the ultimate object to be achieved is to complete the assessment. Therefore, if the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Assessing Officer and cooperate in the assessment proceedings, that would be in the interest of revenue and sufficient compliance of the statutory provisions. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application filed before the first respondent dated 11.01.2016 under Section 144A of the Act and consequently, the impugned order dated 19.03.2016 is set aside. The observations made therein is vacated and the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent and raise all the issues before the second respondent, who shall consider the same independently, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the order passed by the first respondent dated 19.03.2016.
Issues involved:
Assessment year 2013-14 scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, discrepancies in work in progress figures, application under Section 144A of the Act, directions issued by the Joint Commissioner, challenge to the order passed by the first respondent, petitioner's request for consideration of other issues, withdrawal of application under Section 144A, permission to approach the Assessing Officer, compliance with statutory provisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Discrepancies in Work in Progress Figures: The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in engineering works and property development, faced scrutiny for the assessment year 2013-14. Discrepancies in work in progress figures were noted, with the petitioner explaining that errors in the e-return for the previous year led to a variation of ?2,35,79,509. The petitioner sought to rectify these errors and clarified the correct value of work in progress for the current assessment year. 2. Application under Section 144A of the Act: The petitioner filed an application under Section 144A, requesting directions for the assessment year 2013-14. Detailed information regarding construction receipts, expenses, loans, and creditors was provided to the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the first respondent issued directions based on the submissions made by the petitioner, which the petitioner found to be counterproductive and prejudicial to their interests. 3. Challenge to the Order: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent, contending that several issues raised were not adequately considered. The petitioner argued that since the Joint Commissioner did not address all raised issues, the Assessing Officer might overlook important aspects during assessment. 4. Withdrawal of Application and Approach to Assessing Officer: The petitioner, through their counsel, requested to withdraw the application under Section 144A and expressed willingness to directly approach the Assessing Officer to present all relevant points. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the importance of addressing all issues during the assessment process to ensure a fair and comprehensive evaluation. 5. Judicial Decision: The court considered the provisions of Section 144A, highlighting the role of the Joint Commissioner in providing guidance to the Assessing Officer for completing assessments. The court concluded that permitting the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer and raise all issues independently would serve the interest of revenue and fulfill statutory requirements. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application under Section 144A and directed the petitioner to engage with the Assessing Officer within a specified timeframe for further assessment proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment granted the petitioner permission to approach the Assessing Officer directly, set aside the order issued by the first respondent, and instructed the petitioner to address all issues with the Assessing Officer for a comprehensive assessment process.
|
