9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The representation/reply also states that thereafter the land was capitalized in the books of accounts of the TVS Finance and Services Limited (formerly Harita Finance Limited) and that the land was valued at Rs.102.50 Crores - By 30.03.2020, it was stated that the difference between the sale consideration (Rs.102.50 Crores) and the outstanding loan amount against the lands were settled (Rs.14.70 Crores) and was offered to tax under the head capital gains by TVS Finance and Services Limited (TVSFC) in the Assessment Year 2009 to 2010. The petitioner has further stated that though the land was transferred to TVS credit Services Limited, the same was transferred to the petitioner s vendor namely TVS Motor Services Limited at cost by TVS Finance Services Limited with TVS Credit Service Limited being confirming a party by an agreement to sale dated 20.01.2010. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner has replied to the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has not asked for a speaking order. After the objections, the petitioner was overruled by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Services Limited by a letter dated 05.02.2016 confirmed that as per their books of account, the petitioner was owed a Debit balance of Rs.26,15,86,900/- as on 31.03.2013 together with interest. 5. He further submits that again by another confirmation letter dated 28.03.2018 the said company confirmed that the TVS Finance and Services Limited entered into an agreement with M/s.TVS Motor Services Limited on 02.04.2012 and sold the land to the petitioner and another three companies for a consideration of Rs.25.82 crores each and that the amount was received by the petitioner from the TVS Motor Services Limited. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned Assessment Order has been passed by the first respondent contrary to the decision of this Court in GKN Drivershafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (2002) 70 CCH 1264 SCC. 7. The learned counsel further submits that after notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and in response to the 2nd show cause notice dated 25.09.2021, the petitioner has specifically raised the issue regarding reopening of the assessment vide rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner of Income Tax , (2016) 97 CCH 0065 ChenHC xxi. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Private Ltd. , (2005) 273 ITR 0001. xxii. Cadel Weaving Mill Company Private Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax , (2001) 249 ITR 0265. xxiii. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra Ltd , (2018) 404 ITR 0001 (SC). 9. Opposing the prayer for interfering with the impugned order, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner neither asked for any reasons for reopening of the assessment nor raised any objections at the appropriate time so to pass a speaking order in terms of this Court in GKN DriveShafts (India ) Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (2002) 70 CCH 1264 (SC). 10. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal and therefore there is no merits in the present writ petition. 11. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to a communication dated 15.11.2021 from the office of the respondent after the impugned order was passed where the reasons were given for reopening the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby proposed that the assessment year 2016-2017 may be reopened in order to verify the inconsistencies and being the income escaping assessment to tax. 15. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 knowing fully well the reasons why the notice was issued for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner in their representation/reply dated 29.10.2019 has traced out the entire history and the circumstances under which the land which originally belonged to Piramal Finance Services Limited (PFSL) was transferred to Harita Finance Limited (HFL) which later named as TVS Finance and Services Limited and that a sale agreement was signed and the possession of the land was handed over to the said company. 16. The representation/reply also states that thereafter the land was capitalized in the books of accounts of the TVS Finance and Services Limited (formerly Harita Finance Limited) and that the land was valued at Rs.102.50 Crores. Based on the valuation on 27.03.2009 the TVS Finance and Services Limited (formerly Harita Finance Limited (HFL) entered into an agreement with TVS Credit Services Limited to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs against the Impugned Assessment Orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 21. Having given up the right to ask for a speaking order, the petitioner cannot now turn around and question the Impugned Order by stating that it has been passed over-looking the safeguard prescribed as the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 259 ITR 19. Further, case also does not warrant a speaking order in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Court. 22. I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissinoner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the petitioner s appeal shall be entertained and disposed in merits and in accordance with law. 23. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
