9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objections raised against the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that when a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notice. It was further held that the AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time and upon receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file an objection to issuance of notice and AO is bound to dispose of the same by speaking order. In the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd [ 2017 (9) TMI 1589 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the exercise of considering the assessee s objections to the reopening of the assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasi judicial function. The order disposing of the objection should deal with each objection and give proper reason for conclusion. The order should reflect proper application of mind. Applying the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GVK Driveshaft [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the view that disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded before issuance of notice u/s 148 though no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the total income at ₹ 2,61,725/-, making addition of ₹ 63,915/-. 3. Thereafter, the AO issued impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment for the year 2012-13. In response to the notice, the writ applicant filed his return of income and asked to provide reasons recorded for the reassessment. The revenue vide its communication dated 19.06.2019 furnished the reasons recorded, which reads as under:- Reasons recorded: 1. The assesses company filed its return of income for AY 201213 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 1,97,814/. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 25.03.2015 determining total income at ₹ 2,61,725/after making addition of ₹ 63,915/. 2. In this case, an information has been received from Investigation Wing, Surat vide letter No. SRT / ITO (Inv) / STR / AJS /Report/201819 dated 07.03.2019 in relation to huge credit transaction of ₹ 149,73,00,000/into the Bank A/c.No.018010200032081 of Axis Bank during the F.Y. 2011-12. As per report, in this case, summons 131(1) was issued to the assessee company on 22.02.2019, the summons could not be served as the premises of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 5. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the was made on 25.03.2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has expired in this case, the requirement to initiate proceedings u/s. 147 are reason to believe that income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year under consideration. As the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee more than ₹ 51.96 Crore than the sales shown by the assessee during the year under consideration which is its unexplained credit entries and the assessee is beneficiaries of these credit entries which proves that the assessee has not disclosed all material fact necessary for assessment fully and truly. It is pertinent to mention here that reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration have been recorded above (refer paragraphs 2 to 4 above). In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel Mr. Sunit Shah for the writ applicant that in the previous assessment proceedings, the writ applicant had furnished all the details and based on the details provided, the AO had framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, and now on the same material, the AO sought to reopen the assessment which is nothing but a change of opinion and therefore, mere change of opinion, the reopening of concluded assessment is not permissible in law. 10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the writ applicant that the impugned notice has been issued on 30.03.2019 in relation to AY 2012-13, which clearly beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and as such in absence of any failure on the part of the applicant to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 of the Act is invalid. 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Kalpana Raval appearing for the revenue, reiterating the stand adopted by the revenue in affidavit in reply as well as in the order of disposing of the objections, submitted that the action taken by the AO is just, legal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime and upon receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file an objection to issuance of notice and AO is bound to dispose of the same by speaking order. In the case of SABH Infrastructure Ltd (supra), the Delhi High Court, has held that the exercise of considering the assessee s objections to the reopening of the assessment is not a mechanical ritual. It is a quasi judicial function. The order disposing of the objection should deal with each objection and give proper reason for conclusion. The order should reflect proper application of mind. 13. Applying the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GVK Driveshaft (supra), we are of the view that disposing of the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, though not part of the statutory requirement, as prescribed under the Act, however, same is guided by the directions issued by the Apex Court. The specific objections raised by the writ applicant, produced on record at page-33 to 45 to this writ application, have not been properly dealt with by the AO. The lapse is in clear violation of the decision of the Apex Court. We are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
