9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed under Section 144 read with Section 147. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot claim that reopening cannot be done, as there were no fresh tangible materials or reasons for reopening. If the original assessment was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Court might have examined as to whether there were fresh tangible material for reopening the assessment or it is a case of change of opinion. Since there was no scrutiny assessment, the question of change of opinion does not arise and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the reopening of assessment is bad in law, cannot be countenanced. For the first time, the assessee has placed an explanation in respect of the information which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income submitted by the petitioner on 30.12.2014, for the assessment year 2013-14. By another notice, dated 07.06.2017, issued under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act, the respondent called for certain records relevant for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner would state that she along with her authorised representative had appeared before the respondent on 29.09.2017, and submitted certain details of land and requested further time to file the required documents as there was change of Auditor and non-availability of back papers connected with the return of income. This request was stated to be acknowledged by the respondent vide letter dated 25.10.2017. It is submitted that on 02.11.2017, the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was disposed of by final order dated 27.02.2018, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 19.12.2017 and directing the respondent to furnish reasons for reopening of the assessment within a period of 15 days, pursuant to which, the reason was communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 15.03.2018. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted her objection dated 17.04.2018. This objection has been rejected by a speaking order dated 25.04.2018, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after elaborately referring to the above factual position submitted that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act on 07.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons for reopening the assessment and on receipt of the reasons, the petitioner was directed to file objections and the respondent was directed to redo the assessment by following the mandate laid down in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., vs. ITO, 203-259-ITR-19. In paragraph 7 of the order, dated 27.02.2018, the Court noted that admittedly no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) was made and as per the annual information return received from the Bank and Sub-Registrars office, the petitioner had deposited cash of ₹ 23.54 lakhs and purchased immovable properties for ₹ 33 lakhs and the return of income filed by the assessee reflected receipt of agricultural income of ₹ 1.6crores. Therefore, the Court noted that the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
