TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taken the entire as source of receipt. The re-assessment was completed under section 143(3) / 147 on 30th March, 2015. Thereafter, the CIT(E) on perusal of the assessment record noticed that the assessee has taken loan from Government of Uttar Pradesh and Work Bank. The balances of the same have been shown at Rs. 23,12,21,756/- as on 01st April, 2006. The assessee claimed accrued interest of Rs. 2,91,78,400/- as expenditure as per the income and expenditure account. The CIT(E) observed that since the interest was only accrued but not paid till filing of the ITR, it was not to be allowed as expenditure in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. It was further noticed by the CIT(E) that the assessee has shown current liabilities under different heads:- i. Malva fee ii. Water tax iii. Sewer tax iv. Legal fee v. Registration money payable But the assessee has not actually paid these taxes / fees and therefore, the same are not allowable expenditure as per the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the CIT(E) was of the view that the AO has overlooked these facts and the assessment order passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial which was available at the time of the original assessment proceedings, then, it would amount to a mere "change of opinion not "reason to believe" as has been extensively discussed in the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court In CIT Vs. Usha International (ITA No.2026 of 2010 In the present case there is no such material which came into the possession of the after the original assessment proceedings were concluded on the Bake of which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The AO has passed the reassessment order on the same set of documents/reasons /facts which were also the basis of reassessment assessment proceedings in PORAX to him at the time of first proceedings was only a change of opinion" which is not permissible in view of the above mentioned Supreme Court / High Court's decision. Therefore the appellant succeeds on this issue and the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 are liable to be quashed on this issue alone on the ground that they are illegal and bad in law. ISSUE NO.2: No failure on part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 9.1 In the Second Set of grounds, the appellant has contended that since it had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment proceedings on 26/03/2015 which is also against the settled Principals of Law & Principals of Natural Justice." In support of Additional Ground Number 1, the Appellant begs to submit as Under i. Without Prejudice to the submissions made herein above, the Appellant begs to submit that the order of rejection dated 26/03/2015 to the objections raised by the Appellant was communicated to the Appellant alongwith Assessment Order dated 30/03/2015 u/s 147/14313) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 04/04/2015 which further substantiate the fact that the Appellant was not given sufficient time (at least 4 weeks' time) to submit its cross objections/further submissions on the order of rejection as above before completion the reassessment proceedings as above. i. The Appellant raised objections to the reasons recorded and requested to drop the proceedings initiate u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 03/09/2014 itself which was kept itself pending/not disposed by the Assessing Office till 26/03/2015 i.e. only few days before the assessment was getting time barred. In the meantime the Assessing Officer continued to send notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cussion, the writ petition succeeds, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There will not be order as to Costs." 1. The judicial pronouncement given by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune in the case of "Nirmala V. Sanklecha, Nashik v. Income- tax Officer" reported in Cross Objection No. 35/Pun/2016 dated 23-02- 2018. The relevant extract of the said judgement is reproduced as under:- .........7. Controverting the submissions made by DR, the Id. AR submitted that a perusal of order sheet entry reproduced in the statement of facts clearly show that the objections raised by the assessee were not disposed of by passing a speaking order. Not admitting but assuming, even if it is considered to be a valid order for disposing of objections, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to assessee by Assessing Officer for challenging such order as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 296 ITR 90. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the Assessing Officer shall pet proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act 1961 are not relevant in the Appellant's case since the Assessing Officer already accepted the Appellant's reply to the queries raised u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and corresponded with the Audit team through written correspondence with a request to drop the audit para which substantiates the fact that the same issue on which the Assessing Officer was satisfied at one stage, cannot subsequently be treated as fresh REASONS TO BELIEVE that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment on the same issue on which he / she was satisfied with the Appellant's submissions. This further substantiates the fact the same was merely a "Change of Opinion" by the Assessing Officer which must not be treated as "REASON TO BELIEVE". Thus, the entire assessment proceedings are also void ab-initio on this issue. ....... ....... The judgment so delivered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, after interpretation of the objects of the regulatory statute and applicability of the same in the case of Authority constituted under UPUDA, has not been challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus the said....