9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent stage, i.e. the stage of issuance of the notice for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. While reserving the right of the Petitioner to raise all the defences available to it in accordance with law in the reassessment proceedings, including the right to cross-examine the deponents of the statements relied upon by the Department in the reassessment proceedings, the Court declines to interfere in the matter. - W.P. (C) No.14369 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2021 - CHIEF JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR AND SAVITRI RATHO JUDGE Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jena, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, 2017 by the learned CIT (A), Cuttack. 5. Thereafter, the impugned notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued to the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.1 on 29th March 2019, pursuant to which the Petitioner sought the reasons for such reopening. The Petitioner filed the same return pursuant to the above notice. 6. After the reasons for reopening were communicated on 17th May, 2019, the Petitioner filed objections on 18th June, 2019. On 26th June, 2019, Opposite Party No.1 rejected the objections of the Petitioner and on 26th July, 2019 issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, seeking further details from the Petitioner. 7. At that stage the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner, in which notice was issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Appearing on the behalf of the Income Tax Department, Mr. Radheshyam Chimanka, learned counsel submitted that the objections of the Petitioner have been considered in sufficient detail by the Opposite Party No.1 and have been rightly rejected. He submitted that the requirement of law, as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC), stood completely satisfied. He further placed reliance on the decision in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 340 ITR 64 (SC) to justify the reopening of the assessment after four years, on account of failure of the Petitioner to make a full and true disclosure of all the facts within its knowledge at the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shell companies for the financial year 2011-12 and this showed that the Petitioner had taken loans of ₹ 15 lakhs from them. The statement made by Mr. Mukesh Banka under Section 132 (4) of the Act was also set out in the reasons for reopening. 14. It requires to be noted that while the original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 15th November, 2014 and an assessment order passed, the information gathered by the Department pursuant to the search and seizure operation on the Banka Group of Companies emerged only on 21st May, 2018 and thereafter. Clearly, this information was not available with the Department earlier. Prima facie, therefore, it does not appear that the re-assessment was triggered by a mere change of op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly during the course of re// assessment. As explained by the Supreme court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (supra): In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 16. The facts of the present case therefore are distinct from the facts in Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shodiman Investment Pvt. Ltd., GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., and Rajendra Suganchand Shah (supra). This is not a case where no materials have been placed on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. Such opportunity would be provided, if sought by the Petitioner, and if so permitted in law, in the reassessment proceedings. 19. Consequently, this Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out any case for interference by the Court at the present stage, i.e. the stage of issuance of the notice for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 20. Accordingly, while reserving the right of the Petitioner to raise all the defences available to it in accordance with law in the reassessment proceedings, including the right to cross-examine the deponents of the statements relied upon by the Department in the reassessment proceedings, the Court declines to interfere in the matter. 21. The writ petition is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
