9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate assessment proceedings in the extended period of limitation nor the assessing authority has yet issued any notice to initiate reassessment proceedings. The objection raised by the petitioner assumes significance inasmuch as the said issue was admittedly extensively and squarely dealt with by the assessing officer in the original assessment order dated 19.12.2013 - To allow the revenue to obtain sanction in absence of any 'reason to believe' (as to escapement to tax of any turn over), would be to allow the revenue authorities to find new way to harass the assessee. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Tax No. 298 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply of the petitioner on the aforesaid issue was considered by the assessing officer and thereafter he concluded that the aforesaid amount did not represent consideration received for transfer of property in goods. Accordingly, the assessing officer accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and did not impose any tax on the aforesaid amount. Then according to the petitioner, certain refunds had become due for two A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2010-11 had become due for two years. Also, there were some outstanding demands against the petitioner for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10. Thus, vide its application dated 02.06.2016 the petitioner claimed refund of ₹ 22,66,429/-. According to the petitioner, occasioned by the refund application th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings against the petitioner is contained in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit. No other or new fact has been stated over and above the allegation made in the notice dated 09.02.2017 issued by the Additional Commissioner. The counter affidavit also does not refer to any document or material that may have come into existence, after the original assessment order came to be passed on 19.12.2013, having bearing on the 'reason to believe' recorded by the petitioner's assessing authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been subjected to regular assessment proceedings, wherein specific query had been raised proposing to subject the petitioner to tax on the entire amount of Rs. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been clarified in the invoices that a decision has been taken to reopen the assessment. This by itself is not sufficient and a good ground when the assessing authority was possessed with all material at the time of initial assessment and nothing material was concealed from him. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that there was no material or any reason to believe on part of the respondent no. 2 for granting permission under Section 29(7) of 'the Act' for reassessing the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-10. Accordingly we quash the order dated 9.1.2017 and the consequential notice dated 10.1.2017 and the petition is allowed. Opposing the above, Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Special Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only after the assessing officer has recorded his 'reason to believe' that any turn over has escaped assessment. The objection of the State in the present case appears to be that the stage of applying the aforesaid principle has not arisen inasmuch as at present, neither the Additional Commissioner had granted the sanction to the petitioner's assessing authority to initiate assessment proceedings in the extended period of limitation nor the assessing authority has yet issued any notice to initiate reassessment proceedings. At the same time, it is equally clear that sanction has been sought only on one ground namely on a proposal made by the petitioner's assessing authority to reassess the petitioner to tax on the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in the present case, we find that the objection raised by the revenue is purely academic and not real. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Aryaverth Chawl Udyoug and Others (supra) relied upon by the State itself lays down that while the sanction may be granted on a change of opinion but reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a simple change of opinion. In so far as the revenue in the present case, has failed to demonstrate that the reassessment has been sought for anything on any ground other than change of opinion, even if the sanction order were to be granted, it cannot fructify into anything other than closure of the proceedings without creating any tax liability on the petitioner. The challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
