TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at year had escaped assessment. The respondent issued Notice under Section 143(2) dated 07.06.2016 calling the petitioner to attend the hearing on 14.06.2017 in connection with the return of income submitted by the petitioner on 30.12.2014 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Thereafter, the respondent issued another Notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 dated 07.06.2017 requiring certain details to be furnished in connection with the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that her representative had been appearing before the respondent and even on 29.09.2017, the authorized representative appeared and submitted the details of the land and required further time to file the required documents in view of change of Auditor and non-availability of back papers. On 02.11.2017, the petitioner's authorized representative filed the return of income, bank statements and copy of agricultural land documents along with other required documents for the Assessment Year 2013-14 before the respondent. On 25.10.2017, the respondent required the petitioner to appear on 03.11.2017 with certain required documents. Thereafter, the respondent issued the summons date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner had also filed return of income electronically on 20.12.2017 in response to the Notice issued under Section 148, along with the letter dated 20.12.2017 qualifying the return of income. The filing of the said return and letter seeking reasons after passing of reassessment order, is nonest in law. The reopening of the assessment proceedings and passing of reassessment order under Section 144 read with 147 is valid in law, in as much as, the same is passed within a period of four years from the end of the Assessment Year and when no regular assessment under Section 143 (3) was made. 4.Heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5.Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice for the reason that the petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing and opportunity to produce the documents. The learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner has asked for the reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itting their objections to the reasons for reopening the assessment on being furnished by the Assessing Officer." 6.Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, she has not utilized the same, therefore, the order passed by the respondent is just and proper. 7.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the petitioner has filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 belatedly on 30.12.2014. Admittedly, no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) was made. According to the respondent, as per the Annual Information Return received from the Bank and Sub Registrar's Office, the petitioner had deposited cash of Rs. 23.54 lakhs and had purchased immovable properties for Rs. 33 lakhs. The return of income filed by the assessee also reflected the receipt of agricultural income of Rs. 1.6 crores. In these circumstances, the respondent initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing Notice under Section 148 dated 08.06.2016, which is within four years from the end o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperties for Rs. 33 lakhs be assessed as unexplained investment under Section 69 for failure to prove the source of purchase and cash deposit of Rs. 23.54 lakhs be assessed as unexplained cash under Section 68. The hearing was fixed on 29.11.2017 and on that day also, there was no response on the side of the petitioner. By letter dated 01.12.2017, the respondent called upon the petitioner to produce additional details and the case was posted on 05.12.2017. On 05.12.2017, the petitioner sought time till 11.12.2017. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 08.12.2017. Again the case was adjourned to 18.12.2017 and even on that day, there was no response from the petitioner. Hence, the respondent had passed the assessment order on 19.12.2017 and despatched the same to the petitioner. Therefore, from the above details given by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent had given sufficient opportunities to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had failed to utilize those opportunities and produce the documents before the respondent. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not given due opportunity, cannot be accepted. 8.However, on the other ground that furnishing the....