TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was selected for scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 04.08.2014 under Section 142 (1)/143 (2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents mentioned as per the annexure to the notice. The items mentioned in the annexure are the copy of return; audited account; tax audit report, balance sheet; profit and loss account etc.; copy of evidence of payment of tax and brief note on business activity. By its letter dated 13.08.2014, petitioner submitted all the documents which are called for by respondent No.1 and which included copy of income tax return; computation of taxable total income; audited annual financials as on 31.03.2012 (auditor's report, balance sheet, profit and loss account and notes to accounts); tax audit report in Form 3CB / 3CD; annual tax statement in form 26AS u/s. 203AA of the Act and nature of business activity. 4. Petitioner thereafter received the further notice dated 09.10.2014 under Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon petitioner to provide certain other details, one of which was "details of interest expenses claimed under Section 57 of the Act". These details were provided by the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions had to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could assume jurisdiction for issue of notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 (a). But under the substituted Section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, that was enough to confer jurisdiction to reopen the assessment; (ii) Subsequent to the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had wrongly claimed the deduction under Section 57 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed reasons to believe for reopening of the assessment. This issue went unnoticed by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2012-2013 and therefore, the jurisdictional requirement under Section 147 of the Act is fulfilled and reopening under Section 147 of the Act cannot be challenged; (iii) The Assessing Officer had not made any discussion in respect of those points on which assessment is reopened, thus it can be hardly stated that Assessing Officer ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 and set aside a similar notice dated 26.03.2019 issued by respondent No.1 u/s.148 of the Act as well as an almost identical order dated 30.09.2019 rejecting the objections of the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment. He has submitted that by the said notice and order, the respondent No.1 had sought to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. This is for the same assessment year as in the present case. He has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. bears the same date as the impugned order in the present case and was passed by the same Assessing Officer. He has submitted that the reasons given in the impugned order for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner are the same reasons given in the order dated 30.09.2019 which order was quashed and set aside in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. He has submitted that the findings of this Division Bench in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. will apply in the present case. The impugned notice dated 26.03.2019 and impugned order dated 30.09.2019 in the present case also requires to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer about the manner of computation of the deduction under Section 57 of the Act. 14. In the present case the findings in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. apply. The reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act reveal that the audited accounts filed by the petitioner was relied upon by the Assessing Officer to state that "Hence, interest paid to HDFC bank amounting Rs. 11,46,38,381/- was not an allowable deduction u/s.57 of the Act as claimed by assessee against interest income treated as other income." There is not a whisper in the present case as to what was not disclosed. Further, the Assessing Officer had admitted that all details were fully disclosed. Thus, the present case is not a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on the reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income. Here too the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer about the manner of computation of the deduction u/s.57 of the Act. 15. This Division Bench in Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. has considered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....materials on record to see whether the appellant has succeeded, in showing that the Incometax Officer could have no reason, on the materials before him, to believe that there had been any omission to disclose material facts, as mentioned in the section, it is necessary to examine the precise scope of disclosure which the section demands. The words used are "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year ". It postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. What facts are material, and necessary for assessment will differ from case to case. In every assessment proceeding, the assessing authority will, for the purpose of computing or determining the proper tax due from an assessee, require to know all the facts which help him in coming to the correct conclusion. From the primary facts in his Possession, whether on disclosure by the assessee, or discovered by him on the basis of the facts disclosed, or otherwise-the assessing authority has to draw inferences as regards certain other facts; and ultimately, from the primary facts and the further facts inferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else-far less the assessee--to tell the assessing authority what inferences-whether of facts or law should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences-whether of facts or law-he would draw from the primary facts. If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with failure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn? It may be pointed out that the Explanation to the sub- section has nothing to do with " inferences " and deals only with the question whether primary material facts not disclosed could still be said to be constructively disclosed on t....