9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as formed an opinion and has the belief that the income in respect of the transfer of the petitioner s shares while acquiring National Woods Products had escaped assessment u/s 56(2)(viib). The reasons recorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to accord sanction for the issue of notice u/s 148 cannot be said that the sanction was granted mechanically and without application of the mind. The mere submission of books of accounts and the certificate issued by the Statutory Auditor would not amount to the fact that the petitioner has disclosed fully and truly all material facts in his returns for completion of the assessment proceedings in respect of his income. Therefore, find that there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the authorities by re-opening the assessment. The petitioner has participated in the re-assessment proceedings, and now the final order has been passed. The petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority under Section 246A of the IT Act against the said assessment order. WP dismissed. - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR; K.JOHN MATHAI; JOSON MANAVALAN; KU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational Wood Products , which exceeded the face value of the shares, and the aggregate consideration received for such shares exceeds the fair market value of the shares and the same would be chargeable to income tax as Income from Other Sources . It was also said that the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant (Ext.P6) was dated 31.03.2013, whereas the net asset value of the Company adopted was on the date 30.06.2013, and therefore, the valuation made by the external Chartered Accountant was not correct. 2.4 The 3rd respondent was of the view that there was no full and true disclosure made by the petitioner at the stage of assessment, which had led to the escapement of income from the assessment in the relevant Assessment Year. The 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 05.07.2021 under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, again communicating the reasons for reopening. The jurisdiction of assessment proceedings was transferred to the Faceless Assessment Unit on 11.11.2021 for completion of the proceedings as prescribed under the National Faceless Assessment Scheme. After the said transfer, the 4th respondent issued a communication dated 09.12.2021 (Ext.P13) wherein the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see answered the said issue. Thereafter, having satisfied with the response of the assessee, the assessment proceedings were finalised. For this proposition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Marico Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) 425 ITR 177 (Bom.) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Marico Limited (2020) 16 SCC 354 . 3.2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the valuation reports/certificates produced at the time of the original assessment were on record of the assessment files and re-opening of assessment on the issue of valuation of shares would be beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents under Section 147 of the IT Act. The correctness or otherwise of the mode of valuation cannot be a reason for invoking the larger period of limitation (beyond four years) under the proviso to Section 147 of the IT Act. For invocation of a larger period of limitation, twin conditions are to be satisfied: (i) escapement of income and (ii) non-disclosure on the part of the assessee. In the present case, the petitioner has made all disclosures before the Assessing Authority. In view thereof, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e light of Explanation 1 to Section 147, and therefore, there is no substance in the submission that the assessment has been re-opened merely on the basis of change of opinion . 4.2 Sri Christopher Abraham furthermore submits that the re-assessment proceedings have now culminated in the passing of the impugned Ext.P21 assessment order against which the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act is available to the petitioner, and the petitioner is free to assail the assessment order taking all the grounds regarding the validity of re-opening of the assessment order as well as on merits against the additions made in the assessment. When there is an equally efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, filing of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not permitted. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal Order dated 08.08.2013 in Civil Appeal No.6704/2013 [357 ITR 357 (SC) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The question which needs to be considered in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
