9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 143 (3) of the Act, against the assessee M/s.B.Rangaswamy Naidu Orchards Pvt.Ltd., and no direct action was taken against the petitioner and admittedly in the present case no direct orders are passed and the AO has reason to believe for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and consequently issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to defend his case including the factual aspects submitted even before this Court. If at all, the petitioner claims that he was not a director of the said Company M/s.B.Rangaswamy Naidu Orchards Pvt.Ltd., it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Authorities Competent Information for the purpose of invoking Section 147 of the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to defend his case in the impugned order dated 18.11.2016, the order was passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. The second respondent made an observation in Paragraph No.5.4, as under: "5.4 However, what is allowed as expenditure has been receipt in the hands of the erstwhile directors of the appellant company. The receipt of ₹ 5.50 crore do partake the character of income in the hands of erstwhile directors of the appellant company. It has been stated in Paragraph 4.3 of the assessment order that the erstwhile director of the company have admitted income from capital gain on sale of shares in than Income Tax return for the Assessment Year 2009 - 10. The erstwhile directors have received ₹ 2.75 crore each (by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Paragraph No.5.4 are the facts which were considered and an observation made with reference to certain transactions. Thus, the said observations are considered as an information for the purpose of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. However, no final decision is taken directly based on the observations made in the said order dated 18.11.2016. The Petitioner is entitled for an opportunity and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 2003 259 ITR 19 (SC), are to be followed scrupulously. Thus, the Authorities have not been taken any decision based on the observations made by the second respondent in orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 2003 259 ITR 19 (SC). 7. The learned Senior Standing Counsel though disputed the fact that the petitioner was not a director of the Company, said that the petitioner was the Ex-director of the Company. However, all such disputed facts with reference to the relevant dates and documents are to be verified by the Authorities Competent and the petitioner by availing an opportunity has to establish the said facts. 8. As far as the observations / considerations recorded in Paragraph No.5.4 of the order impugned dated 18.11.2016 is concerned, it is to be construed only as an information for the purpose of invoking Section 147 of the Act an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
