9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge is laid to the notice dated 27.03.2019, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. 2.1 Besides this, the petitioner/assessee has also assailed the order dated 17.10.2019, issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) whereby, its objections to the commencement of reassessment proceeding against it were rejected. 3. For the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ action, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: 3.1 The petitioner/assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment and accordingly, the order dated 11.02.2015 was passed under Section 142(1) of the Act. Prior to the scrutiny, the petitioner/assessee, inter alia, was called upon to furnish information as to various aspects, including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019. In the objections, the petitioner/assessee attempted to explain the charge leveled against it, which was that although under the heading loans and advances, in the balance sheet for the year ending on 31.03.2012, the amount shown was Rs. 74,50,000/-, it had invested Rs. 1,80,00,000/- in an entity going by the name, Divine Communications System Pvt. Ltd. [in short, "Divine"]. 4.1. In other words, the charge against the petitioner/assessee was that there was no explanation for the difference in the two amounts referred to above i.e., Rs. 1,05,50,000/-. It is this amount, which according to the AO, had escaped assessment. 5. The explanation that the petitioner/assessee provided in the objections filed was that it had invested in 0% Opt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding was thoroughly examined and only thereafter the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 was framed. In other words, there was neither a failure to disclose fully and truly all material nor was this a case where information was embedded in the documents furnished, which did not come to the notice of the AO. (ii) Although the AO was obliged to furnish a copy of the approval, he had failed to do so, which was a serious infraction of law. Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, on the other hand, drew our attention to Note 8 of the balance sheet for Financial Year (FY) 2011-12, which referred to the fact that investment in OFCDs to the extent of Rs. 6,75,00,000/- was made by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivine. (vi) Under the heading 'non-current investments', the total amount shown in the balance sheet ending on 31.03.2012 is Rs. 8,55,00,000/- (vii) In the Note appended to the balance sheet, this amount which is shown as an investment in OFCDs discloses that the investment is made in Digivive. (viii) The notices dated 06.01.2014 and 11.02.2015, inter alia, were issued to the petitioner/assessee with regard to various matters including 'non-current investments'. In reply to notices, the petitioner/assessee has provided a complete break-up of the investments made in Divine. This is reflected in replies dated 16.12.2014 and 10.03.2015. Therefore, while Mr Chaudhuri projects that there was a typographical error in Note 8 appended to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
