2018 (2) TMI 1377 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - According to the department, there are documents suggesting that there are TDS transactions concerning the firm for the period relevant to the assessment year in question. More importantly, during the course of a search against two individuals, name of the firm was found. There were documents indicating that the assessee had entered into huge cash loan transactions. The ledger account itself showed cash credit to the tune of ₹ 3.38 crores (rounded off) and debit of ₹ 2.28 crores (rounded off). There are as many as 20 entries of cash loan transactions in the name of the assessee in the ledger account for the period relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. It was also noted that despite such transactions, they have still not filed a return of income. All these are primarily factual aspects and cannot be gone into in the writ petition. It would be always open for the petitioner to establish that these transactions do not concern the petitioner or that the transactions are well explained. Whatever be the petitioners defence must be raised before the Assessing Officer during such assessment proceedings and not before this Court in a writ petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 based on firm dissolution and subsequent operations by a partner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in printing, challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. The firm claimed it was dissolved in 2007, and one partner took over the business as a proprietary concern. Despite the firm's dissolution and the partner filing returns for the relevant period, the notice sought to assess the firm's income for 2010-11. The court previously dismissed a similar petition challenging the same notice, emphasizing the existence of transactions indicating the firm's activity during the relevant period. The court noted substantial cash loan transactions and TDS deductions involving the firm, leading to the issuance of the notice (Para. 1-3).

In the present petition, the petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice against a dissolved firm. The petitioner contended that the department was aware of the dissolution and failed to dispute the objections raised against the reopening of assessment. The firm's counsel highlighted the voluminous materials supporting the department's position regarding payments and interest transactions during the relevant period. The court reiterated that a fresh petition challenging the same notice on the same grounds as the previous petition was not maintainable. The court examined the petitioner's contentions on merits, reviewed the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, and found no reason to interfere (Para. 4-8).

The Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment included TDS deductions by a third party, substantial cash loan transactions, and the firm's failure to file a return for the assessment year 2010-11. The department relied on ledger accounts showing significant cash credit and debit transactions involving the firm. Despite the petitioner's arguments, the court emphasized that factual disputes should be addressed during assessment proceedings rather than in a writ petition. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to present defenses before the Assessing Officer (Para. 8-11).