AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s challenge the lower appellate order holding the impugned reopening as invalid thereby deleting section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs. 86,34,086/-. 3. We come to relevant facts first. The assessee-individual is engaged in construction work through his proprietary concern. He filed return on 31-12-2006 stating income of Rs. 6,40,490/-. The same was summarily processed. The Assessing Officer thereafter took up scrutiny. He completed a regular assessment on 11-12-2008 assessing taxable income of Rs. 6,72,440/-. First round of assessment appears to have attained finality at this stage. 4. It transpires from the case file that the Assessing Officer thereafter formed reason to believe that assessee's income liable to be assessed had escaped....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, has not been paid during the previous year, or in the subsequent year before expiry of the time prescribed u/s. 200(1) of the Act. It was observed from record that during the previous year relevant to A.Y.2006-07, the turnover of the assessee was Rs. 127,56,5844/- and the assessee had made 'job work' payments to sub-contractors amounting to Rs,86,34,086/-. As per section 194C(2) of the Act, TDS was deductible from the above payments. However, the auditors have stated in the certificate in form 3CD that no TDS has been deducted by the assessee during the previous year relevant to A .Y .2006-07. Since the assessee had made the above payments without deducting tax there from, these expenses were required to be disallowed as per section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een reopened not on logical belief but on the basis of presumptions and surmises which are not true. I have gone through the relevant facts of the case, the reasons recorded for reopening, the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3), the audit report filed with the return, the reassessment order, the submissions of the assessee and the law related to the issue. The reasons recorded, as reproduced earlier in para.3.1. The reopening is within 4 years of the end of the assessment year in question and there is no requirement that there should be failure of the assessee to disclose true and full material facts, before reopening. The contentions of the assessee on this count are therefore rejected. The AO has formed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had also commented in the assessment order that these have been verified. The following comments / observations made in the assessment order make it apparent that the expenses have been examined in the original proceedings: During the course of assessment proceedings, written explanations have been furnished and books of accounts/bills/ vouchers/for expenses have been produced for verification and the same have been perused. (Para.2, page-1 of the assessment order) The submissions and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings have been examined in view of various issues raised and the relevant facts and circumstances have been taken into consideration (Para.3, page-1 & 2 of the assessment order) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and is decided as such." This leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 7. We have heard both the parties. Learned departmental representative strongly argues in favour of the Assessing Officer's action in reopening the regular assessment framed in assessee's case resulting in section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 86,34,086/- made on subcontractors payments because of his failure in deducting TDS. The assessee supports the CIT(A)'s order. He takes us to page 55 of paper book containing Assessing Officer's notice u/s. 142(1) dated 21-07-2008 seeking specific details of these payments at serial no. 10 along with documentary evidence. This is followed by his observations in assessment framed on 11-12-2008 that the above stated notice as well as assessee's expla....