TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....talized films, thermal lamination and leather finishing foil. The petitioner-assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 37,64,79,263/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the notice under Section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. 3. The assessment proceedings were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 16.12.2016 at nil income after making a disallowance of Rs. 4,63,75,270/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the returned income. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 16.12.2016 before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee against which the department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which also passed an order in favour of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) i.e. after a gap of 4 years for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 147/148 of the Act for re-assessing the income of the petitioner-assessee. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a return on 30.04.2021 and also filed a letter dated 31.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ored the fact that the petitioner actually purchased the property in assessment year 2015-16 and not in assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner in assessment year 2015-16 showed the property as asset in the balance sheet. Further the respondent never provided the copy of sanction letter for re-opening the case duly approved and further ignored the fact that the petitioner-assessee had provided all the relevant documents, books of accounts, balance sheet, profit & loss account, ledger etc. to the AO during scrutiny assessment which clearly shows that the petitioner-assessee disclosed all facts, however, the AO never raised any query for the same and suddenly re-opened the case of the petitioner after a gap of 4 years on the basis of information received from the insight portal i.e borrowed satisfaction without conducting any independent enquiry and further had not provided the source of same to the petitioner-assessee against the settled law which clearly says that it is the duty of the AO to provide the source of everything mentioned in the reasons for re-opening. 7. In the present case, as per the interim order dated 14.02.2022, proceedings initiated vide the above said notices w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d litigation got merged with Advaita Allied Health Services Limited with PAN AARCA8316K. This company Advaita was later on renamed as Max India (PAN AARCA8316K). 12. As a result of above schemes, the litigation with respect to investments made by MAX Financial (AABCM1204G) in Neeman BV (part of "Health and Allied Activities Business"/"Allied Health and Associated Activities Business") got vested in Max India (AARCA8316K). 13. The additions made in the case of Max Financial Services relate to the business of allied health and associated activities, the litigation thereto, in view of the above mentioned schemes is being carried on by and in the name of Max India. The petitioner-assessee (erstwhile M/s Max India Limited) has showed nil investment in ITR filed for A.Y.2014-15 (Annexure R-1) and the company showed no addition to the fixed assets in its reply dated 04.11.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 (Annexure R-2). 14. As per assessment order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure R-3) for the assessment year 2014-15, disallowance of Rs. 4,63,75,270/- was made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. The appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eel Park, New Delhi in June 2014 and after making the entire payments, sale deed was reflected in its return for the year 2015-16 and the return filed by the petitioner had been accepted by the revenue. The case was adjourned so that the respondent will get written instructions from the concerned authority as to whether the return filed for the year 2015-16 has been accepted. 20. A short affidavit dated 21.04.2023 filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record, as per which, the assessing company has filed its return for the assessment year 2015-16 at an income of Rs. 2,73,40,34,290/-. The case of the assessee-company was selected for scrutiny and on 08.12.2017 the scrutiny was completed at an income of Rs. 2,73,57,91,585/- and the re-assessment for the year 2015-16 was completed after scrutiny on 25.01.2021 at an income of Rs. 3,46,40,46,243/- and disallowance of Rs. 65,79,70,844/-. It is further stated that proceedings have been initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Ld. PCIT-1, Jalandhar on 25.02.2020 while setting aside the orders passed by the assessing authority after scrutiny and the matter was remanded back to pass a fresh order on the following i....