TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for reopening of the Assessment for the year 2014-15. 5. The brief facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the petitioner submitted the return of income on 24.11.2014 computing total income at Rupees NIL. 5.1. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice dated 28.08.2015 under Section 143 of the Act followed by notice dated 08.04.2016 under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued requiring the petitioner to furnish various details stated therein. 5.2. The petitioner was specifically asked to furnish the detailed working of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A along with justification thereof. 5.3. The petitioner by letter dated 04.05.2016, provided the details called for and after consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer passed an Assessment Order under Section 143 (3) of the Act on 13.05.2016. 5.4. The respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 27.03.2021 for the year under consideration on the ground that the income has escaped assessment and asked the petitioner to file return. 5.5. In response to the said notice, the petitioner fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en so as to form a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment as per the provision of Section 147 of the Act. 6.1. It was pointed out that the reasons state the source of information as "on verification of available records" and "on perusal of the available records". It was therefore submitted that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment. 6.2. It was submitted that during the original assessment proceedings, a specific querry was raised with respect to the issue of deduction under Chapter VI-A of which Section 80P is a part and in response thereto, the petitioner has duly submitted the details of interest earned from Co-operative Bank which was claimed as deduction thereunder. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah submitted that the reasons clearly state that the assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of Rs. 7,77,224/- under Section 80P (2) (d) of the Act. It was therefore submitted that it is a clear case of re-assessment proposed on a mere change of opinion. 6.4. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah submitted that the reasons wrongly state that the issue under c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of State Bank of India Vs. CIT reported in (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), wherein it is held that reopening with regard to the deduction of interest received from Cooperative Bank is not tenable as there is no escapement of income with respect to the allege claim of deduction under Section 80P (2) (d) of the Act. 6.11. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs Income-Tax Officer reported in 41 ITR 191 for maintainability of the writ petition, so as to prohibit the Assessing Officer from acting without jurisdiction and existence of alternative remedy as appeal and reference to the High Court was not held to be always a sufficient reason for refusing quick relief by Writ or Order restraining an authority from acting without jurisdiction. 7. On the other hand learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons for issuance of the notice for reopening of the assessment need not be gone into at the stage of reopening. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of Akshat Pramodkumar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT rend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment. 7.6. It was submitted that assessee has option to represent its case on factual as well as legal position before CIT (Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal and hence instead of exercising remedy available under the Act, the petitioner could not have challenged the proceedings by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court as the petitioner has alternative remedy available and the Writ filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has scrutinized the issue of deduction under Section 80P of the Act by raising specific query in the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act which was replied by assessee and thereafter the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act was passed. Therefore, there is no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all the material....