TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paper products and stationeries. They filed their return of income on 25.11.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15, declaring a total income of Rs. 9,31,000/-. On scrutiny of the return, notices dated 28.08.2015 and 07.04.2016 were issued under Section 143 (2) of The Income Tax Act (in short, "the Act") calling upon the appellant to produce certain material evidence for the said assessment year. The appellant submitted their reply along with all material evidence before the authority and on consideration of the same, the respondent completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the return of income filed by the appellant, vide order dated 07.10.2016. 3. While so, after five years, the respondent issued a notice dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar the appellant and pass orders on the objections dated 12.07.2021 within a period of four weeks. It was further observed that assessment, if any, would be taken up subject to conclusion on the aspect of jurisdiction. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2021 made in WP.No.17262 of 2021, the respondent passed an order dated 15.12.2021, rejecting the objections filed by the appellant by observing that action under section 147 was validly initiated after obtaining necessary approval from the prescribed authority as provided in the Act; the reopening of the assessment under section 147 for the year 2014-15 was very much within the legal provisions envisaged by the said sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and the assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18. It is made clear that the observation in the impugned order is only for disposing the objection of the petitioner against reopening the completed assessment. 19. Ultimately, the issue will have to be decided on merits. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate reply/representation explaining the reason as to why the completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act on 07.10.2016 deserves to be confirmed. 20. Under these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed. The respondent is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that adh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd so he could have no material before him for believing that there had been any material non-disclosure by reason of which an underassessment had taken place. We are, therefore, bound to hold that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Income-tax Act did not exist and the Income-tax Officer had therefore no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 34 in respect of the years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 after the expiry of four years." By placing reliance on the above decision, it is submitted that in the case of appellant, the reasons recorded did not disclose any fresh materials at the hands of the assessing officer and there is obviously lack of jurisdiction under prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 143(3) on 07.10.2016. Subsequently, the respondent reopened the assessment under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, to which, the appellant filed its objections on 12.07.2021. Thereafter, as per the order of this court dated 18.08.2021 in WP.No.17262 of 2021 at the instance of the appellant, the respondent passed the order dated 15.12.2021 rejecting the said objections, on the premise that there are fresh tangible materials available at the hands of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The said order was put to challenge before the learned Judge in WP.No.186 of 2022, which was dismissed, by the order dated 10.01.2022 impugned herein. 10. We find no reason to interfere wi....