TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough time was granted on 18th December, 2019. 2. As could be seen from the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019, reopening is proposed after expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year. Since assessment under Section 143(3) has been completed, the proviso to Section 147 of the Act shall apply. The onus is on respondents to disclose what was the material fact that petitioner failed to disclose truly and fully. 3. We have considered the reasons recorded for reopening and in our view, it does not disclose anywhere that there was failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Simply using the words, ".... by reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act". 5. We are actually having difficulty to make out any sense in the reasons recorded. The entire basis, as we have understood, is certain companies were accepting contracts and were subcontracting those contracts to other entities and respondents came to know about this based on a survey under Section 133-A of the Act of one Singla Engineers and Contractors Private Limited ("SECPL") on 31st October, 2014. First of all, this survey has been conducted before the assessment order dated 31st March, 2015 for Assessment Year 2012-2013 was passed in the case of petitioner and, therefore, the Assessing Officer should have been aware of any such information....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47,452/- from SECPL, which was credited as income in the relevant year. Petitioner, thereafter, on 25th March, 2015 filed submissions giving the AIR Reconciliation that included reconciliation of income received from SECPL. Thereafter the assessment order dated 31st March, 2015 under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2012-2013 was passed. The assessment order dated 31st March, 2015, copy whereof is annexed to the petition, also records that the authorised representative of petitioner attended from time to time and furnished details called for. 7. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that there was non-disclosure on the part of petitioner. These facts have been brought to the notice of respondents by petitioner vide le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Limited (supra). 10. We also notice in the order disposing petitioner's objections, Assessing Officer has relied upon various judgments of which copies have not been provided or were brought to the notice of assessee before the order on objection was passed so that assessee could have suitably dealt with those judgments/orders. Therefore, we would add that there is also breach of principles of natural justice on the part of the Assessing Officer, who as a quasi judicial authority had an obligation to adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice. 11. We also notice that in the order disposing the objections, the JAO has gone beyond the reasons recorded for reopening inasmuch as accor....