9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails before him and also has accepted that there was a scheme of arrangement between BCCL and Petitioner and the Real Estate Division of the BCCL was demerged and vested with Petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2011. Therefore, Petitioner had explained all the details and after considering all that, the assessment order dated 12th March, 2015 was passed, accepting the return of income filed by Petitioner with same set of reason. AO had in his possession all the primary facts and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amount was to be allowed as deduction under section 24. AO had all material facts before him when he made original assessment. When the primary facts necessary for asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) to section 147 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2984 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2022 - K.R. SHRIRAM R.N. LADDHA, JJ. Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Manish Kant and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Respondents. (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. : 1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an order dated 15th October, 2019, rejecting Petitioner's objections to the reopening of the assessment. 2. Mr. Porus Kaka submitted that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and without authority of law for want of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for such assessment year. 5. We have considered reasons for reopening given on 21st August, 2019 to Petitioner and it is quite obvious that it is nothing but change of opinion. Prior to passing of the assessment order, on 31st March, 2012 the Assessing Officer had called upon Petitioner to furnish various details and copy of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act which is annexed to the Petition. Petitioner provided all the details as required and in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that pursuant to the orders passed by the Honourable High Court in the scheme of arrangement between the Bennett, Coleman Co. Ltd., (BCCL) and Petitioner under sections 391 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng all that, the assessment order dated 12th March, 2015 was passed, accepting the return of income filed by Petitioner with same set of reasons. The Assessing Officer had in his possession all the primary facts and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amount was to be allowed as deduction under section 24 of the Act. As noted earlier, the Assessing Officer had all material facts before him when he made original assessment. When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for re-assessment. Even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with failure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn?. It may be pointed out that the Explanation to the sub-section has nothing to do with inferences and deals only with the question whether primary material facts not disclosed could still be said to be constructively disclosed on the ground that with due diligence the Income-tax Officer could have discovered them from the facts actually disclosed. The Explanation has not the effect of enlarging the section, by casting a duty on the assessee to disclose inferences to draw the proper inferences being the duty imposed on the Income Tax Officer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
