9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts by placing necessary account books and other evidence, it is open to the AO to assume jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceedings.
AO found that it was false claim and in such view, after the completion of four years from the end of the assessment year, in which the assessment was made u/s 143(3) earlier, AO has correctly reopened the assessment and the learned Single Judge has correctly upheld the action of the AO.
Further, assessee filed appeal before the CIT Tax (Appeals) as against the impugned assessment proceedings.
As such, the appellant who filed writ petition under Article 226 and having exercised such remedy and faced dismissal order, filed alternate remedy, on the self same issues.
The appellant can very well go into the matter in depth before the CIT (A) on the merits of reopening u/s 147. Therefore, no force in the contention of appellant that it is not a double claim. Assessee having furnished incomplete details and which has been comes to notice of the AO the Assessee has no case, therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present writ appeal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant was selected for a scrutiny assessment and first respondent after considering the submissions made by the appellant, completed the assessment vide order dated 17.10.2018 without making any adjustments in respect of credit note deduction. Thereafter, the first respondent issued the impugned Notice dated 30.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act alleging that the income of the Appellant had escaped. 7. While so, for the above said Impugned notice, the appellant sought reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The first Respondent vide letter dated 19.08.2021 furnished the reasons recorded. For which the appellant filed its detailed objections vide its letter dated 20.09.2021. In turn the third respondent disposed off the objections filed by the appellant vide impugned order dated 15.02.2022. . 8. Aggrieved over the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 and Impugned notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021, the appellant filed W.P.No.8014 of 2022 before this court. 9. The Writ Court on appreciation of rival submissions, held that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted while reopening the Assessment and overruled the objection of the appellant. Accordingly, the writ court, by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs carried on is for the reasons provided by the Second Respondent-Principal Commissioner of Income tax which is merely the financial statements of the subject AY and the same were duly made available by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings for such year. Hence, there is no failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose any material fact which led to reopening of assessment after expiry of 4 years from the end of the subject AY. Therefore, the learned Judge, Writ Court, has erroneously mentioned that the Appellant in the financial statements for FY 2013-14 has claimed the deduction twice. 15. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that reopening could not have been made by the first respondent, merely based on the change of the opinion. In this connection the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in DCIT vs Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd- (2000) 243 ITR 499. The learned counsel had also relied on the following judgments to reiterate his submission that reopening is without jurisdiction. a) CIT vs Kelvinator of India (2010) 2 SCC 723. b) Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd vs Union of India [2021] 128 taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2. Further, assessee raised contention with respect to time provided vide the SCN. Same also stands rejected as assessee was later given a suo moto letter and VC for compliance on 27-12-2023, thus making total time available with assessee to explain its position regarding SCN dated 20-12-2023 as 7 days. 12.3. In its written reply (signed reply was resubmitted on 02-01- 2024), assessee has failed to explain the observations made by the Honorable Madras High Court that it had claimed double deduction in AY 14-15. Assessee has failed to establish that the amount under consideration was offered as other income in AY 2014-15 as there is no detailed bifurcation of other income of Rs. 7,31,66,598/-on record. Further, the Note 33 relied upon by the assessee also fails to provide the required bifurcation and hence its claim that after reduction of credit note from the sales, the same was offered as other income stands rejected. Therefore, it is clear that assessee has firstly deducted Rs. 6,54,75,440/- from sales and then also claimed deduction of Rs. 6,54,75,440/- as part of any other amount allowable as deduction. Thus, assessee has claimed double deduction and addition of Rs. 6,54,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haudhary V Deputy Commisioner of Income tax [2023] 153 taxmann.com 25 (Gujarat). F). Shrikant Phulcgand Bhakkad (HUF) V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 137 taxmann.com 445 (Bombay). G). Kerala Financial Corporation V Joint Commisioner of Income-tax [2009] 308 ITR 434 (Kerala). H). Bright Star Syntex (P.) Ltd. V Income-tax Officer [2016] 71 taxmann.com 64 (Bombay). 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 14. The issue involved herein is that the appellant has claimed the deduction of Rs. 6,54,75,440 twice. According to the Revenue, such double deduction is impermissible. It is clear that the appellant/assessee could not prove it is not a double claim before the Assessing Officer or before the learned Single Judge. Having carefully examined the reasons stated in the reopening of the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, in the present case, this court is of the view that the said reasons are relevant and material for the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, it is clear that assessee has firstly deducted Rs. 6,54,75,440/- from sales and then also claimed deduction of Rs. 6,54,75,440/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
