9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding during the original proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008 - there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment during the original assessment proceeding leading to Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008 - Thus, the notice dated 22 March 2013 is unsustainable. There is no occasion to consider the petitioner's other contention that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the present proceeding initiated by the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is mere change of opinion – thus, the notice dated 22 March 2013 is an order without jurisdiction - the requirement of the first proviso to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded read as under: Date: 22/03/2013 Reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 Talati Pannthaky Associates P. Ltd. A. Y. 2006-07 1 In this case, it is seen that in the computation of income net profit as per P L A/c. was taken at Rs.60,80,154/as against actual profit of Rs.1,27,40,620/thus income was considered less to the extent of Rs.66,53,466/. 2 Secondly, as per the details, u/s. 44AB furnished along with return of income, it was seen that following amounts were disallowable: 1 PF other amounts not paid by due date (section 2(24)(x)) Rs.15,19,692/ 2 Expenditure at club Rs.1,87,646 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose all facts necessary for assessment. It was also pointed out that there is a mistake in the reasons as the computation of income as filed along with the return discloses the net profit at Rs.1.27 Crores and not at Rs.60.80 lakhs as alleged. Besides, the details filed under Section 44AB of the Act were reflected in the computation of income as disallowable expenditure and added to the income of Rs.1.27 Crores disclosed in the computation of income. There was no fresh tangible material to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the above, it was prayed that the impugned notice be ordered to be withdrawn as being without jurisdiction. 6 The Assessing Officer by order dated 8 January 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings under Section 44AB of the Act along with return of income. The computation of income filed along with return filed by the petitioner indicate that the amounts of expenditure which are sought to be added as disallowed were either furnished in the computation of income itself or subject of information sought for during the course of assessment proceedings as evidenced by letter dated 27 March 2008. In view of the above, it was submitted that the present notice has been issued on mere change of opinion. 8 Per contra, Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 as well as the order dated 8 January 2014, rejecting the petitioner's objection to the reasons recorded for issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, it is evident that all material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment were on record during the assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Order dated 21 April 2008. It is, therefore, clear that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. In fact, the order dated 8 January 2014 rejecting the objection for reopening the assessment does not dispute that facts were disclosed. The reasons for reopening is that the facts could be detected only on full and detailed scrutiny. In the present case, the Assessment Order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as the present proceeding initiated by the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is mere change of opinion. 11 In the above circumstances, we hold that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is an order without jurisdiction, as the requirement of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. The consequent order dated 8 January 2014 of the Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioner's objection to the reasons recorded for issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act also does not survive. 12 The petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs. - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
