2022 (5) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jecting the Petitioner's challenge to a reassessment order dated 21st November, 2012 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) i.e. DCIT, Rourkela under Section 143(3)/147 of the IT Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 7th December 2017, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 25th March, 2015 as well as the order dated 21st November, 2012 passed by the AO. 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner-Assessee derives income from mining. The Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Dipti Ranjan Patnaik, a mining concern. He filed a return of income on 29th September, 2008 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 declaring a total income of Rs.2,39,29,880/-. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting to the reopening of the assessment, the Assessee submitted a letter dated 26th September, 2012 pointing out that of the advances made to certain concerns, Rs.3.44 Crores was for business purposes, Rs.1.25 Crores was given to RKD Construction (P) Ltd. for acquiring immovable property and the balance, Rs.3.27 Crores was for non-business purposes. Further, the Assessee pointed out that he had a Capital of Rs.17.55 Crores, other than borrowed funds and, therefore, he was having ample interest free funds for giving loans and advances. 6. A further show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 7th November, 2012 asking him to explain why interest of Rs.69,63,062/- paid by the Petitioner should not be disallowed. The Petitioner responded....