AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is private limited company and is engaged in business of construction and engineering. 3.2) For the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the petitioner submitted e-return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,61,86,720/-. 3.3) The petitioner received a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 3.12.2012 calling for certain details which included details of scrutiny assessments of last three years and whether the petitioner is in appeal against the same and whether appeal has been decided and its status of demand. 3.4) The petitioner received another notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 27.12.2012 seeking further details. 3.5) The petitioner submitted its reply dated 9.01.2013 and submitted copy of company's audit report and tax audit report as well as copies of previous three years' assessment orders and also clarified that the petitioner had preferred appeal against the order for Assessment Year 2009-2010 before the CIT(Appeals) which was pending. 3.6) The respondent thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.06.2013 wherein once again the petitioner was required to submit assessment orders for Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee has paid Rs.27,26,230 to 6 entities (Bhargav Desai, HUF: 5,85,500, Anuja B. Desai Rs.5,82,500 Rs.5,82,500, Harshal K. Patel HUF: Rs.5,82,500, Ratnakala H Patel: 5,82,500, Mahesh Desai: Rs,98,000 & Moti Hira Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.:2,98,230) towards guarantee commission. Out of this payment, Rs.23,30,000 paid to first four entities were related persons as reported in annexure-2 of 3 CD report. The assessee company has deducted 10% TDS on this commission. The total guarantee commission is paid @2% of turnover amongst the entire guarantors in equal amount. 2.1. As per memorandum of understanding signed between assessee company and Moti Hira land Developers Pvt. Ltd. It was noticed that the memorandum was signed undated and without signature of any witness. The stamp of Rs. 100 embossed on the agreement born the date of 16.04.2010 indicating that it was executed on or after that date. Further, no agreement is on record in respect of guarantee commission payment made to other entities. The details of properties which were offered by these entities and proof that it were subsequently mortgaged with bank for loan taken by the assessee company is not on record. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Total excess payment 513366 Under the circumstances, an amount of Rs.5, 13.366/- has escaped assessment. 3. The assessee company is having huge investment in shares and secures which derives exempt income. Therefore the disallowance w/s.14A should be made. The disallowance u/s. 144 works out to Rs.3,67,488/- and have escaped assessment. 4. In respect of income reconciliation as per 26AS and books of account revealed that the assessee had shown work contract income of Rs.33,54,39,765 and income declared in IT survey of Rs.2,33,00,000 totalling to Rs.35,87,39,765 as income from works contract. The assessee had made disclosure of Rs.2,33,00,000 during the survey dated 06.01.2011 on account of work-in-progress and inadequate explanation of expenditure. It is noticed from income reconciliation as per 26AS that the assessee has total construction income from P.C. Snehal Construction Pvt. Ltd., of Rs.35,28,19,625 during A.Y.2011-12. Against this, assessee has shown only Rs.33,54,39,765 as contract income. Therefore the difference of Rs. 1,73,79,860 (35,28,19,625 33,54,39,765) has escaped assessment. 3. In view of the above,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct issued beyond a period of four years is barred by limitation under proviso to section 147 and hence the same is without jurisdiction. 4.4) Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 mainly on four reasons. With regard to payment of Guarantee Commission of Rs. 27,26,230/- to six entities, the petitioner had in the course of assessment proceedings in its replies dated 5.11.2012, 5.03.2014 and 19.02.2014 produced the details of secured loans taken from banks and institutions, details of Guarantee Commission and also the individual details about the name of person, amount of guarantee commission and nature of payment along with copy of Agreement of Guarantee Commission expenses. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer after being satisfied with such details and after application of mind passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act without making any addition towards Guarantee Commission expenses. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has not unearthed any fresh tangible material on record to prove that the assessee company has failed to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings submitted statement showing project wise reconciliation between 26AS and Books of Accounts. It was submitted that the differences were explained at length during the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer after being satisfied with such explanation thought it fit not to make any addition on account of income difference in 26AS statement and books of account. 4.8) Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that reopening is based on audit objections and therefore, also the notice of re- assessment of a previously scrutinized assessment beyond a period of four years is bad in law and therefore, the impugned notice and consequential orders may be quashed and set aside. 4.9) In support of his contention that reopening of an already completed scrutiny assessment beyond a period of four years cannot be undertaken, reliance was placed on the following decisions of this Court: 1) In case of Kalpataru Sthapatya (P) Ltd. v. Income tax Officer, Ward 1(3) reported in (20130 29 taxmann.com 218 Gujarat. 2) In case of Dhruv Dipakbhai Panchal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(2) reported in (2018) 93 taxmann.com 206 (Gujarat). 4.10) It was submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in [1961] 41 ITR 191(SC). 5.3) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the primary fact being agreements in respect of five entities/individual except Moti Hira Land Developers to substantiate the claim of payment of such guarantee commission. The petitioner in its reply dated 05.03.2014 had submitted nature of payment of commission to such entities, however did not produce any agreement with these entities/individual to justify payment of guarantee commission. It was submitted that the agreements on the basis of which such guarantee commission was paid was essential and material fact for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a conclusion as to whether such commission paid was for business purposes or not. It was submitted that the deduction of TDS in itself does not lead to conclusion that such payment was for business purpose. Therefore, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 5.4) Relying upon the Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Act, it was submitted that the said explanation clearly states that production of account books or other evidence fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reafter the assessment order came to be passed by the Assessing Officer. Insofar as ground of payment of Guarantee Commission to six different entities is concerned, the assessee had supplied details of secured loans with name, addresses, type of loan and loan limit of individual banks and institutions. The assessee had also tendered details of individuals to whom the assessee had paid Guarantee Commission and also produced the copy of Agreement of Guarantee Commission executed with said entities. The assessee had filed replies for claim of Guarantee Commission expenses during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without making any addition under the head Guarantee Commission expenses. Therefore, there was no failure on part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. 8.Insofar as payment of excess interest over 12% to the tune of Rs.5,13,366/- is concerned, the petitioner had submitted audited balance sheet with its reply showing bifurcation of interest expenses during the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer after being satisfied with such documents made no addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l facts necessary for assessment and based upon such material supplied by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer passed the original assessment order. Further, it appears that the notice for reopening is based upon the audit objection and there is nothing on record to suggest that such reopening is made on account of new tangible material available on record. It is therefore, apparent that there is change of opinion by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012, more particularly, when the issue raised in the reopening assessment is already considered during the original assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot have any jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the year under consideration more particularly, when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years as held by the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) as under: "2. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated ....