TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said Act was issued, the proper course of action for the assessee was to file a return and if he so desired to seek reasons for issuing the notice. The Assessing Officer was bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time to which the assessee had the right to file objections. The Assessing Officer was bound to dispose of the issue by passing a speaking order. The writ petitioner/assessee on 15th July, 2013 received a notice dated 4th July, 2013 under Section 148 of the said Act for the assessment year 2009- 10. By a letter dated 19th July, 2013 he challenged the legality of the notice and asked for reasons. Furthermore, the Income Tax authorities were requested to treat the return of income filed on 29th September, 2009 as a return in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 194C of the Income Tax Act 1961: a. Printing charges Rs. 1,10,96,704/- b. Binding Charges Rs. 97,74,436/- c. Lamination Charges Rs. 17,00,684/- d. Advertisement Rs. 99,31,351/- ii) It was also observed from the assessment folder that in respect of some ledger accounts viz M/s. Trirupati Binding Works. M/s. Maa Tara Book Binding Works & Advertisement A/cs for the A.Y 2009-10, no deduction of TDS was made at the time payments; iii) Verification of the assessment records revealed that a sum of Rs. 10,77,243/- was debited as Royalty in the profit and loss account of M/s Prantik for the A.Y.2009-2010, while as per the computation of total income for the A.Y. 2009- 2010 it was revealed that the assessee had included a sum of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income of Rs. 2,71,01,034/-. On 19th February, 2011 the department issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the return had been selected for scrutiny. On 7th June, 2011 the department issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the petitioner calling for certain information in a prescribed format. Such information was furnished by the petitioner on 17th June, 2011. On 24th August, 2011 further queries were raised by the department. Finally, on 28th December, 2011 the department completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 3,14,06,070/- and computed the tax liability at Rs. 16,58,280/-. Mr. Dutta relied on Income-Tax Officer, Income-Tax-cum-Wealth-Tax Cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". .................... The High Court was right in holding that the Income tax Officer had no valid reason to believe that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the four years in question. Having second thoughts on the same material does not warrant the initiation of a proceeding under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." Mr. Dutta contended and in my opinion rightly, that during the 143(3) assessment, all information, documents and other records relating to the assessee for the relevant assessment year were before the Assessing Officer. The reasons which are advanced show discovery of new facts from the existing records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as manufacture to enable the writ petitioner to obtain the benefit of Section 80-IB(5) of the Act. My ruling was that on the evidence before the Assessing Officer he had held the business of the assessee to be manufacture cattle and poultry feed. During the subsequent year he could not reopen the assessment on the same evidence. I had followed a judgment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay in India Steamship Co. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others reported in 275 ITR 155. Be that as it may according to the department by their letter dated 19th November, 2013, they proposed to serve the reasons upon the petitioner. It was allegedly sent by the departmental process-server on 22nd November, 2013. The department's version is that the....