TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the year 1999 - 2000. the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting objections preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner is also challenging the consequential reassessment order dated 28.12.2006 passed by respondent No.1. 02. Facts of the case in short are as follows:- 2.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Mawa, Ghee etc. The petitioner is a regular assessee of the Income Tax Department. 2.2. An inspection was carried out of the business as well as residential premises belonging to the petitioner by the authority of the Commercial Department. According to the petitioner, before the preparation of the scrutiny report, it voluntarily filed the revised return disclosing the entire turnover before the Commercial Tax Authority and also paid the tax on the basis of the revised return. However, the Commercial Tax Authority assessed the petitioner and imposed a penalty under Section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act which is the subject matter of W.P. Nos.348 of 2005 & 351 of 2005. 2.3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the noticee is entitled to file an objection. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid notice has been issued after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year. The petitioner was supplied the reasons to show that the assessing authority reopened the assessment only on the ground that the Gross Profit Rate in respect of unrecorded transactions, which has been estimated @ 8% on such sales ought to have been estimated @ 12.5% equal to the GP Rate shown by the assessee on its recorded sale. After receipt of such reasons, the petitioner immediately submitted a detailed objection on 30.09.2006 in respect of both the assessment years. The assessing authority has passed the impugned order for both assessment years, hence, these two writ petitions are before this Court. 03. On 13.04.2007, this Court raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies. On 14.05.2007, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of alternative remedy was kept open to be decided after hearing both sides. Vide order dated 06.07.2007, the operation of the impugned orders was stayed by this Court. Vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was set aside. 4.4. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Financial Software & Systems (P.) Limited v/s Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2022) 145 taxmann.com 36 (Mad.), in which it has been held that since at the time of original assessment under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act specific queries were raised by the Assessing Officer which were answered by assessee and thereafter, the assessment order was passed. It was not possible for the revenue to reopen the assessment proceedings on the same issue merely on the basis of a change of opinion. 4.5. Lastly, Shri Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others reported in (2019) 418 ITR 485 (Bom), in which it has been held that the mandatory requirement of income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts and what interference in law should be made on the basis of such facts is within the juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION 07. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the return for the Assessment Year - 1999, 2000 & 2001 disclosing its income/loss on the basis of books of account maintained regularly. The petitioner submitted a separate computation sheet disclosing its profit despite unrecorded transactions. The petitioner claimed gross profit @ 7.5% on such unrecorded transactions and 12.5% gross profit in respect of recorded transactions. After considering all the materials, that the mawa mainly which is to be sold on the same day, being a fast decaying edible item, the profit cannot be claimed @ 12.5% and the assessing authority assessed the profit @ 8%, calculated the income and issued the demand notice. The order was passed on 15.12.2006 and after four years a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued for re-opening of assessment of both the years. Upon demand, the petitioner was supplied the reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to the effect that GP Rate @ 12.5% should have been levied instead of 8% on estimated unrecorded sales of Rs.83,00,000....