TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act. The reasons for re-opening the assessment given to the petitioner vide communication dated 05.02.2016 read as under: "It has been observed that the assessee has claimed erroneous reduction in the value of inventory being flats under construction as per joint venture development, which will be complete on receipt of share of flats apart from cash by the assessee company as agreed in the Joint Venture document which has not taken place during the year. Hence, the claim of reduction to the tune of Rs. 1,63,58,148/- is found not to be in order and thus the income to the extent is considered as having escaped assessment." 2.The petitioner sent a representation and objected to for re-opening of the Assessment. Under these circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. 6.In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication over ruling the objection of the petitioner is liable to be quashed in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in the following cases:- "1.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd, 2001 SCC Online Del 1515. 2.Techspan India Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, (2006) 283 ITR 212 (Del) 3.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha International Ltd, (2012) 348 ITR 485 (Del) 4.Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 5.Shivsu Canadian Clear Waters Limited VS. Income Tax Officer. 6.CIT VS. M/s.Elgi Tread (India) Ltd. In TCA Nos. 131....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g its rights in schedule A to C property. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment orders which came to be passed on 23.03.2015 clearly records that the case was discussed with authorized representative of the petitioner with reference to the difference in the value of the opening stock of the current year with the closing stock during the previous year and the assessment was completed after accepting the total income arrived by the petitioner for determing its tax liability. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that there is no case made out of reopening of the assessment merely because there was a change in the opinion. It is submitted that since the impugned notice for reopening of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chennai in W.P. No.20258 of 2009 reported in [2010] 191 Taxman 38 (Madras). (vi).Girilal & Co Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, in Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2008 reported in [2016] 75 Taxman.com 172 (SC). (vii) Mohan Ravi Vs. Income Tax Officer Non-Cooperate Ward 20(5), Chennai in W.A. Nos.3321 to 3324, 3327 & 3328 of 2019 in CMP Nos.21333, 21334, 21336 to 21339, 21342, 21344, 21346, 21356 & 21358 of 2019 reported in [2019] 75 Taxman.com 373 (Madras)." 14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. I have also perused the impugned notices dated 16.10.2015 and the impugned order dated 18.6.2018. Earlier an assessment order dated 30.12.2016 came to be passed without passing a speak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by separate sale deed in favour of the petitioner or its nominee measuring a total extent of 2157 ft². According to the petitioner's pursuant to the above, the petitioner subsequently, realised an estimated sum of Rs. 54,77, 848/- during the subsequent financial year and paid tax. 19. In the reply dated 26.3.2016 to the impugned notice dated 16.10.2015, the petitioner has not explained clearly as to why the reopening of the assessment on account of wrongful reduction inventory for a sum of Rs. 1,56,14,265/- and further amount totalling to Rs. 1,63,58,148/- from the value of the stock in trade was not correct. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. These are better left to be decided by the authorities in the hiera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice has been issued to reopen the assessment. 24. I find substantial merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. The assessment is driven based on the returns filed by an assessee and therefore it is for the assessee to make correct computation of income for the purpose of payment of income tax. If there is any irregular claim for deduction/exemption, the respondent assessing officer is well within his rights to reopen the assessment as long as which reopening of the assessment is not on account of any change of opinion as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court has followed by all the High Courts. 25. It cannot be stated that the impugned notice has been issued merely on account of change of opinion. Further....