TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.38185 of 2016, the petitioner states that, they filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 29.09.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 136,50,44,330/-. The petitioner's return was processed under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2011 and the petitioner was issued and intimation of the same. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and a notice was issued under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.08.2010 was issued. Thereafter, the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 14.09.2011. An addition to the tune of Rs. 18,94,117/- was made to the petitioner's income, in view of a disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, a notice of demand of a sum of Rs. 6,43,810/- dated 14.09.2011 was also issued to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.09.2014, seeking reopening of the petitioner's income tax assessment for the assessment year 2009-10. The reasons for reopening of the assessment as sought for by the petitioner and it was furnished. 4. In respect of W.P.No.38186 of 2016, the petitioner states that, they filed its return of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the Income Tax Tribunal has quashed the entire proceedings on 16.01.2012 itself, more specifically, before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 8. The learned Senior counsel contended that the order of the Tribunal was taken by way of a writ petition by the State of Odisha in W.P.No.10219 of 2012, and the High Court of Odisha, dismissed the writ petition on 08.08.2016, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the entire issues are non-est in law and therefore, there cannot be any reason to believe for the purpose of reopening of assessment as far as the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 are concerned. 9. The learned Senior counsel relying on the order of the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the High Court in the writ petition, states that there is no escapement of income as such, in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the High Court in order dated 08.08.2016. It is contended that reopening of assessment was initiated after the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the respondent has not even considered the findings made by the Tribunal in its order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason to believe to do so. The objections raised by the assessee were considered by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. The learned Senior standing counsel for the respondent contended that on tracing out new materials based on the MB Shah Commission report, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that there is an escape of income and thus, instituted action under Section 147 of the Act. There was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts as envisaged in Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the assessment validly reopened. A fresh tangible materials are identified by the respondent are provided a cause for them to initiate proceedings for reopening of assessment. Thus, in the present case, enough reasons are substantiated by the respondents for the purpose of reopening of assessment and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. The learned Senior Standing counsel with reference to the orders of the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the High Court, contended that when the Assessing Officer received fresh materials and has reason to believe, there is an escape of income from assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writ petition cannot be directly connected with the facts and circumstances now relied upon by the Respondent Department for the purpose of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 16. Even in case, where certain observations made in the order passed by the High Court of Odisha in a writ petition is in favour of the petitioner or in support of the contentions of the petitioner, it is left open to the petitioner to place all such facts, circumstances, orders and findings before the Assessing officer, while undertaking the process of assessment and the same would not constitute a ground for quashing of the initiation of reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior counsel in this regard needs to be rejected and the writ petitioner is at liberty to place all those orders and materials before the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment and this Court cannot adjudicate those facts and circumstances decided by the Tribunal and the High Court in a writ petition, as the writ petitioner company itself is not a party to the proceedings nor the issues for reopening raised now form part and parcel of the ....