2019 (11) TMI 761 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT - This Court is inclined to dispose the present writ petition without touching upon the merits of the claim made by the petitioner against reopening only with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law on the request made by the petitioner dated 27.08.2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Based on the communication received from the AO, the petitioner shall work out their remedy in the manner known to law. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. Since this Court has directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the representation dated 27.08.2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Assessing Officer is directed not to precipitate the matter further by passing an order of assessment, since the outcome of the order to be passed on the request made by the petitioner dated 27.08.2019 will have a bearing on the Assessee, for filing their objections on the second reason.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-2013.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The petitioner objected to the notice, specifically related to additional depreciation claimed on Plant and Machinery acquired through a slump sale. The Assessing Officer provided reasons for the reopening of the assessment, including the disallowance of additional depreciation and allegations of profit shifting. The petitioner raised objections to the reasons provided and requested further information to respond adequately. The Assessing Officer furnished additional reasons and the petitioner sought more time to reply. The petitioner contended that without the necessary information, they could not effectively respond. The Revenue argued that the petitioner could file objections to enable the Assessing Officer to consider and pass orders accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer had not disposed of the petitioner's request for more information. The Court noted that the petitioner had objections only to the first reason provided for reopening and had yet to file objections regarding the second reason. The Court refrained from expressing a view on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directing the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's request within three weeks. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer should not proceed with the assessment until the request was resolved, as it would impact the petitioner's ability to file objections. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.