9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and the order dated 21st March 2022, rejecting the objections raised by Petitioner to the aforesaid notice. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of generation of electricity for the State of Maharashtra. The Petition relates to A.Y. 2013-14. 3. Petitioner filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 20th November 2013 and the revised return of income on 20th March 2014. The Petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of proceedings various details that were sought were produced, including the Statement of Accounts with annexures and schedules. In note no. 20 annexed to the accounts, details of " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tangible material nor there was any escapement of income. 5. On 21st March 2022 the Respondent No. 2 passed an order, rejecting objections raised by Petitioner and issued a show cause notice along with draft assessment order seeking reply for completion of assessment. 6. Petitioner requested the Respondent no. 2 to keep the proceedings in abeyance and filed the present Petition, challenging impugned notice dated 26th March 2021 and impugned order 21st March 2022. 7. Respondent No. 1 in its reply stated that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available. That the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had rejected the objections and passed order. It is stated that it was evident from the records that the issue under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find no failure to disclose fully and truly in the present case. The reasons evince reliance on facts and figures available in audited accounts. 10. The criteria for reopening of assessment after a period of four years are no longer res integra in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Ananta Landmark P. Ltd v Dy. CIT wherein this Court held that where assessment was not sought to be reopened on the reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but was a case wherein assessment was sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of AO the reopening was not justified. It also held that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 37 (1) operates prospectively. Reliance is placed on Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT 124 taxmann.com 81 (Del), Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. vs PCIT 121 taxmann.com 386 (Kol), DCIT vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. 112 taxmann.com 412 (Del) and Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. vs ACIT 137 taxmann.com 72 (Del). 12. In our view, Explanation 1 will not be applicable as CSR expenditure was incurred as required by section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 and its proposed disallowance would not constitute an offense. 13. It appears that there was no tangible material available on record to conclude that income had escaped assessment. The Apex Court in case of M.M. Aqua Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
