TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sputed circumstances leading to the second round of litigation are narrated before taking up the two legal objections raised by Sri. Sukumar Nainan Oommen. 2.1 The petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09 filed annual return and certified audited statement in Form 13 and 13A. The second respondent, upon verification of the assessment records and a few patent discrepancies in the annual return filed by the petitioner, through Ext.P2 notice dated 16.07.2010 issued under Section 25(1) of the Act called upon the petitioner to file objections, if any, on the proposed re-assessment. The petitioner through Ext.P3 filed objections to the proposed re-assessment made in Ext.P2. The second respondent issued Ext.P4 notice dated 10.11.2010 revising the turnover as Rs. 26,63,96,995/- and called for reply from petitioner. The petitioner in Ext.P5 filed objections to Ext.P4 notice. The second respondent in Ext.P6 order of assessment held as follows: "Along with the reply the assessee produced the books of accounts for my verification for the year 2008-09. On verification of the books of accounts the following amount on account of purchase have been seen duly accounted against the unaccounte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olation of principles of natural justice and recorded the following findings: "4. Heard both sides. The learned representative for the appellant argued that the assessing authority is wrong in stating that the appellant did not account the purchase of Rs. 1,11,61,588/-. The representative argued that the appellant had requested to the assessing authority to give the details of unaccounted purchase amounting to Rs. 1,11,61,588/- and the reason for dis-allowance of export sales which were not given to the appellant by the assessing authority. The representative submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to prove the unaccounted purchase and export sales inspite of the request made to the assessing authority. The assessing authority has not considered the request of the appellant and there is violation of natural justice in this case. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires to be considered again by the assessing authority. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the case back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. The appellant is directed to produce all the books of accounts, purchase and export details before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pees One crore Eleven lakh Ninety Two thousand Two hundred and Thirty Six only). Hence the writ petition. 4. Adv Sukumar Nainan Oommen contends that Ext.P13 order of assessment is completely illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, the respondents during the pendency of proceedings either before the Deputy Commissioner or before the Appellate Tribunal did not contend that a few more details or omissions are noted in the return filed by petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09 warranting re-determination of turnover of the petitioner. On the other hand, the Department tried to sustain the order in Ext.P6 and the Tribunal, upon noticing that there is an illegality in the procedure followed i.e., not affording fair opportunity to petitioner, set aside Ext.P6 order in Ext.P7 order dated 13.11.2013. The order of remand offers opportunity to petitioner to submit the books of accounts and thereafter a fresh order could be passed. The order of remand deals with a consequence of restoration of order in Ext.P6, if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity provided by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, it is stated, though was justified by a few circumstances beyond hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s behalf, but if R2(a) is taken as the starting point for re-assessment, the reassessment is certainly beyond the period of limitation. 6. I have taken note of rival submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties. Now the short point for consideration is whether Ext.P13 order of assessment is in line with the order of Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P7 and amounts to reviving or re-opening Ext.P6 which has otherwise become final by the declaration of the Appellate Tribunal. 7. The case of petitioner is that Ext.P7 dealt with the argument of petitioner made against denial of opportunity and the objection raised in this behalf was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. Thereby the assessment order in Ext.P6 was set aside. As the Tribunal is interdicting the order in Ext.P6 on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice, the Appellate Tribunal did not consider any other point on which the parties are at issue with each other in Tax Appeal. Therefore, as a necessary consequence the Tribunal has rightly restored to file the proceedings of re-assessment initiated through Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 notices. The Tribunal apprehending inordinate delay on the part of petitioner....