9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder similar circumstances. The respondents have also not produced any documents to show that the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has been appealed against before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and an Appeal is pending as on dated. Therefore, even on merits it is not permissible to the respondents to proceed with the impugned proceeding contrary to the said order. As an assessing officer, the respondent cannot take a different view for the assessment year 2007-2008 from the view is taken for the assessment year 2008-2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Union of India Vs Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited[ 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] - This Court is inclined to allow this writ petition. - W.P.No.8077 of 2015 And M.P.No.2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 29.03.2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to re-open the Assessment f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocation of the provisions of Section 147. It is also true that the AO has not brought on record any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.'' 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar reasonings has to be adopted for the present case as well as for the Assessment year 2007-2008. He further submits that for the Assessment year 2011-12, an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was pending on the basis of change of opinion for the reopening of the Assessment under Notification dated 29.03.2014 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is fairly submitted that even though, the petitioner had earlier filed a separate writ petition, the petitioner could not obtained a stay from this High Court. 6.On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Minutes of the Meeting of the petitioner held on 01.08.2006 decided that the Chairman cum Managing Director of the petitioner company will be paid a remuneration consisting of a salary, commission and perquisites which reads as under: ''a.Salary:₹ 5,00,000/- per month (ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds, perquisites and the commission paid to the Chairman cum Managing Director were disclosed. 11.He therefore submits that there is no case made out for invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to section 147 of the income tax act. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed the reliance on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Convertech Equipments (P) Ltd [2013]36 taxmann.com (Delhi) wherein held as follows: 7 .This Court is of the opinion that in view of the fact that no fresh circumstances have come to notice to take a different view, no substantial question of law arises on the point of the disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii). The decisions of the Income Tax authorities involved concurrent findings on pure questions of fact. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in AMD Metplast (P) Ltd v. Dy.CIT [2012] 341 ITR 563/20 taxmann.com 647 (Delhi), after referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motors Services Co.Ltd Vs. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 647 opined that the commission, if found to be paid for services rendered by the director as per the terms of the appointment, cannot be said to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 to section 147, makes it clear mere production of documents and books of accounts or other evidence from which material after due negligence facts can discovered by the Assessing Officer does not amount to disclose within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 16.He therefore submits that, even though, the petitioner had filed an audit report under Section 44AB of the income tax act and the annual report and other documents along with the returns on 20.03.2009, it could not be stayed that there was a true and full disclosure at the time of filing of the returns. 17.It is therefore submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He therefore submits that it is open for the petitioner to produce the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed on 15.12.2013 for the Assessment year 2008-2009 and have the matter decided by the respondent. However, it cannot be said that the reopening of the Assessment was without jurisdiction in view of the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act. 18.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Facts are not in dispute. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
