2023 (2) TMI 972

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving face value of Rs.10 each, for a total consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-. The payment done is stated to be shown through banking channel. 3. During the relevant assessment year, on 10 August 2011, the Petitioner states that it sold these 7,50,000 redeemable preference shares to M/s Janitor Distributors Pvt. Ltd ("JDPL"). An amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was received on account of such sale on 11 August 2011 through the banking channel. The Petitioner states that this transaction was duly reflected by the Petitioner in its books and also in the financial statements and tax audit report for the assessment year 2012-13. 4. A return of income came to be filed by the Petitioner for the said assessment year on 2 September 2012, declaring a total income of Rs.7,36,85,670/-. The Petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny. It is stated that the assessing officer during the scrutiny assessment issued a notice under Section 147(1) dated 10 September 2014, requiring the Petitioner to produce inter alia the following : "Details of other income, particulars/nature of income and amount. In case, the other income includes profit on sale of investments/shares/capital assets, details an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....il; the details of which are given below. Sr.No. Transferee Company Name of the Beneficiary Amount (In Rs.) 1 M/s Janitor Distributors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Kandoi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (AAACK3305M) 75,00,000 8. Objections were filed to the reopening, in which it was urged that the assessing officer had issued the notice mechanically and that the reasons did not reflect what was the information that was not disclosed by the assessee, which, thus, made the proceedings unsustainable in law. It was also stated in the objections that the issue pertaining to Rs.75,00,000/- received by the Petitioner from transferee company, namely, M/s Janitor Distributors Pvt. Ltd. had been gone into in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and, therefore, it was urged that reopening of the assessment on a similar ground would be nothing but a 'change of opinion', which was impermissible in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.  [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC). 9. The reopening is challenged by the Petitioner primarily on the ground that the jurisdictional requirement for reassessment as prescribe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chstone of the reasons recorded, which can be neither added to nor substituted subsequently by way of reply affidavit. 14. On a reading of the reasons recorded, it is clear that not even a murmur has been made by the assessing officer regarding any failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly any material facts necessary for assessment, which if disclosed, would prevent the escapement of income. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax 2004 ITR 332 Vol. 268, it has held as under : "......The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. The reasons are the manifestation of the mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide the link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2(1) [2014] 44 Taxmann.com 304 (Bombay), it was held : "14..........We are of the view that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contained reference and/ or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. If an Assessing Officer has to record the consideration bestowed by him on all issues raised by him during the assessment proceeding even where he is satisfied then it would be impossible for the Assessing Officer to complete all the assessments which are required to be scrutinized by him under Section 143(3) of the Act. Moreover, one must not forget that the manner in which an assessment order is to be drafted is the sole domain of the Assessing Officer and it is not open to an assessee to insist that the assessment order must record all the questions raised and the satisfaction in respect thereof of the Assessing Officer. The only requirement is that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the objection now raise....