TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.05.2019. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the assessment was originally completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013 to 2014 on 29.02.2016 and thereafter the proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1968 was initiated in terms of notice dated 30.05.2019 beyond the period of four years but within the period of six years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a land from the original owners namely M.V.Subramaniam and N.Ponnuswamy by virtue of a sale deed dated 09.04.2012 for total sale consideration of 3.90 crores ( Rs.3,90,13,597/-) and that the consideration for the aforesaid amount was paid by Grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reasons and without disposing the objection of the petitioner for reopening of the assessment impugned order dated 30.09.2020 has been passed and is therefore liable to be quashed. 8. It is further submitted that the entire proceedings is based on the change of opinion and therefore contrary to the following decisions of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- i. Foramer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2001) 247 ITR 0436. ii. Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 0566. iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 0561. iv. Fenner (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 241 ITR 0672. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and another Vs. United Racing and Blood Stock Breeders (P) Ltd., (2016) 130 DTR 0344 (Kar) xx. M.Gurusamy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 97 CCH 0065 ChenHC xxi. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Private Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 0001. xxii. Cadel Weaving Mill Company Private Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001) 249 ITR 0265. xxiii. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra Ltd, (2018) 404 ITR 0001 (SC). 9. Opposing the prayer for interfering with the impugned order, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner neither asked for any reasons for reopening of the assessment nor raised any objections at the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fy the inconsistencies and being the income escaping assessment to tax". 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons given in the said notice also does not justify the reopening of the assessment and therefore prays for quashing the impugned order. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the materials and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Impugned Assessment Order passed by the respondents. 14. The reasons for reopening the assessment was also furnished to the petitioner on 15.11.2021. Relevant portion reads as under: As per the informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....session of the land was handed over to the said company. 16. The representation/reply also states that thereafter the land was capitalized in the books of accounts of the TVS Finance and Services Limited (formerly Harita Finance Limited) and that the land was valued at Rs.102.50 Crores. Based on the valuation on 27.03.2009 the TVS Finance and Services Limited (formerly Harita Finance Limited (HFL) entered into an agreement with TVS Credit Services Limited to transfer the above land with the certain condition. By 30.03.2020, it was stated that the difference between the sale consideration (Rs.102.50 Crores) and the outstanding loan amount against the lands were settled (Rs.14.70 Crores) and was offered to tax under the head capital gains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 259 ITR 19, has not been followed. 20. The merits of the case as to whether the income had escaped assessment or not can be now determined only in an appellate proceedings against the Impugned Assessment Orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 21. Having given up the right to ask for a speaking order, the petitioner cannot now turn around and question the Impugned Order by stating that it has been passed over-looking the safeguard prescribed as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in 259 ITR 19. Further, case also does not warrant a speaking order in terms of the afor....