TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee's obligation to disclose material facts not discharged by mere submission of books and auditor certificate under Section 147</h1> <h3>MAK PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR, THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI</h3> MAK PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR, THE ... Issues involved: The present writ petition challenges Ext.P8 notice, Exts.P21 order, and Ext.P22 penalty notice. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the re-assessment proceedings as without jurisdiction.Details of the judgment:Issue 1: Re-assessment proceedings based on change of opinionThe petitioner filed returns for Assessment Year 2014-15 under the Income Tax Act. The 3rd respondent issued a notice under Section 148 proposing to reassess the income under Section 147. The petitioner argued that the re-opening of the assessment on the issue of share valuation amounted to a change of opinion by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner cited relevant case law to support this argument.Issue 2: Disclosure of material facts by the assesseeThe Revenue contended that the petitioner failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for income assessment. The valuation of shares was done after acquiring assets, not when acquiring 'National Wood Products'. The Revenue cited Explanation 1 to Section 147 to support their position.Issue 3: Jurisdiction and availability of statutory remedyThe Revenue argued that the re-assessment proceedings resulted in the Ext.P21 assessment order, and the petitioner had the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act. The Revenue opposed the filing of a writ petition under Article 226, citing the availability of an appeal.Conclusion:The court found that the re-assessment was not based on a change of opinion, and the petitioner had not fully disclosed all material facts. The court upheld the re-assessment proceedings and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the assessment order within three weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merit without considering the question of limitation.
TaxTMI 