TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al years. The reasons given by the Income Tax Officer would satisfy the statutory requirements for re-opening the assessment. We are therefore of the view that the appellant has not made a case to interfere in the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer for re-opening the assessment for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 - Decided against assessee. - W.A.Nos.1438 and 1439 of 2017 and CMP Nos.19350 and 19351 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - K. K. Sasidharan And R. Subramanian, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Ms.Hema Muralishrishnan ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. K. Sasidharan, J. ) The appellant challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 indicated that the Capital was introduced in the course of the earlier two Financial Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and as such, the Assessing Officer can only take cognizance of the matter by way of initiating suitable proceedings. 4. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice dated 19 January 2017 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appellant made a request for furnishing reasons for re-opening the assessment. The respondent provided the reasons for re-opening the assessment. Thereafter, taking into account the objections of the assesssee, speaking orders were passed by the Assessing Officer. The order dated 11 October 2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was challenged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening the assessment. The respondent is therefore not entitled to re-open the assessment for the Assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that the order passed by the CIT (A) was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.3439/Mds/2016. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue indicated in its order that the Assessing Officer could only take cognizance of the matter by way of initiating scrutiny proceedings for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the assessee has not filed returns during the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 declaring the Capital introduction as the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal noted the observation made by CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer could only take cognizance of the matter by way of initiating scrutiny proceedings for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 12. The Income Tax Officer by notice dated 19 January 2017 initiated proceedings for re-opening the assessment. The notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to the appellant for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Income Tax Officer in the notice issued for the relevant years indicated that he has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax for the relevant assessment years has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating that the entire amount of capital referred to above was introduced during the two earlier financial years succeeded in the appeal. 17. The appellant has no case that a return of income was filed for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 explaining the capital of ₹ 108,35,05,000/- 18. The appellant is now resisting the proceedings for re-opening the assessments on the ground that proper reasons were not given. It is true that specific direction was not given by the CIT (A) for re-opening the assessment for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. However, the reasons given by the Income Tax Officer would be sufficient for re-opening the assessment. 19. The Income Tax Officer in the order dealing with the objections i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|