Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (9) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... audit report that, the employee’s contributions of provident fund for the month of June 2006 was paid in the month of August 2006. Since the payment was made within the time period for filing an annual return under Section 139(1) of the Act of 1961, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the petitioner to claim the deduction. Moreover, there was no new material before the assessing officer to form an opinion under Section 147 of the Act of 1961. - Decided in favour of assessee - W.P. No. 205 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2018 - MR. DEBANGSU BASAK, J. For The Petitioners : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate, Mr. P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate And Mr. S. Rudra, Advocate For The Respondents : Mr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of suppression of material fact by the petitioner. It is also not a case where, the department has received new materials to suggest that, income has escaped assessment. He submits that, the petitioner had replied the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Such objection was disposed of by a writing dated January 11, 2013. Such writing refers to the tax audit report which was available to the assessing officer at the time of passing the order of assessment. No query with regard to the alleged default under Section 43(b) of the Act, 1961 was raised by the assessing officer. Therefore, the assessing officer did not have the requisite jurisdictional fact before it to invoke the provisions of section 147 of the Act of 1961. He has reli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... taxable income. The assessing officer had issued a notice under Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961 raising few queries in connection with such return for the assessment year 2007- 2008. The first petitioner had relied to such notices. It had provided copies of audited accounts and tax audited report for the assessment year. The assessing officer had issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961 in respect of such return. The first petitioner had filed a revised return of income for the same assessment year. The first petitioner received a noticed under Section 142(1) requiring compliance of the requisitions contained therein. The first petitioner has claimed to have complied with such notice. The assessing officer had asked f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The reasons for invoking Section 147 of the Act of 1961 were received by the petitioner on July 22, 2011. The reasons take a view of Section 2(24)(x) and section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961. It is of the view that, the payment of Employee s Provident Fund for the month of June 2006 in August 2006 was beyond the due date thereby disallowing the petitioner to claim deductions on such ground as allowed in the order of assessment. It treats such sum of ₹ 1,05,781/- as an income requiring it to be added back to the total income of the assessee. It is of the view that, a sum of ₹ 1,05,781/- had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2007-2008 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act of 1961. The petitioners had submitted obje .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. In the facts of the present case, the assessing officer had a tax audit report which disclosed the deductions claimed by the petitioner. It had shown, in the tax audit report that, the employee s contributions of provident fund for the month of June 2006 was paid in the month of August 2006. Since the payment was made within the time period for filing an annual return under Section 139(1) of the Act of 1961, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the petitioner to claim the deduction. Moreover, there was no new material before the assessing officer to form an opinion under Section 147 of the Act of 1961. In such view, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates