TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er also lets out properties. 2. Respondent No. 1 is the Assessing Officer ("AO"), Respondent No. 2 had provided the sanction before issuing the impugned notice, Respondent No. 3 is the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC"), Delhi and Respondent No. 4 is the Union of India. 3. Petitioner filed its return of income on 29th November 2016 for Assessment Year ("AY") 2016-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 24,19,30,640/- and a tax liability of Rs. 6,21,47,815/-. Against this liability, a credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 7,76,38,841/- and of advance tax of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was claimed. Petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 3,29,91,090/-. 4. Petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny assessment by Respondent No. 1. During the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2016-2017 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 3. It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Act. 4. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act has been obtained as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. You can file your objection by 30.11.2021." 6. Petitioner filed objections to the reopening, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 17th January 2022. 7. Mr. Kapadia submitted that : a) The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections must deal with it and prima-facie establish that the facts stated by it in its reasons as recorded, are correct. e) In the order on objections, the AO has not only failed to deal with the errors in the reasons recorded, he has made further mistakes inasmuch as the order on objections refers to reopening of assessment on the basis of determining deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act and that does not even find a mention in the reasons recorded for reopening. 8. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed opposing the petition though till date enough opportunity since 11th April 2022 was given to file reply. 9. We agree with Mr. Kapadia that the reasons recorded are based on incorrect facts. We also agree with Mr. Kapadia ....