TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11th December, 2021 by which the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case can be stated as under. 2.1 The petitioner filed return of income on 26th September, 2013 declaring his income at Rs.12,09,758/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The said return was thoroughly processed by the department and ultimately, scrutiny assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 27th March, 2015. 2.2 On 26th June, 2015 notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued directing, inter alia, calling upon the petitioner to furnish several details. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed several replies on 09th July, 2015, 16th July, 2015 and 01st September, 2015. 2.3 The respondent vide notice dated 14th Oc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and the order, has made following submissions. 5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of the authority as per the reasons recorded that the petitioner has not made true and full disclosure while filing return or during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, in absence of any fault on part of the petitioner, it is not permissible in eye of law to reopen the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, learned advocate has requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Patel for the petitioner next submitted that the entire reopening is nothing but a mere change of opinion. To substantiate his contention, learned advocate has emphatically s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present petition may not be entertained. 6.2 Learned advocate further submitted that there was complete failure on part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly the facts and materials necessary for the assessment. He submitted that the assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and the same was shown as tax and duties payable. Learned advocate further submitted that the assessee had opted VCES for service tax and was liable to pay service tax in excess to the amount already paid since September, 2009 amounting to Rs.01,08,38,322/- and not paid before filing of the return. Thereby, the same requires to be taxed by adding the same in the total income. He further submitted that on verification of no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the materials produced on record by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the said sanction cannot, in any manner, said to be invalid and/or improper. Thus, learned advocate requested this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Patel pointed out to this Court so as to establish that reopening is based on mere change of opinion by relying upon page Nos.44, 47, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 72, by which each and every queries that were raised at the time of assessment proceedings were answered by the petitioner by producing cogent material. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that by revisiting the said material, reopening sought to be initiated and thereby the same is nothing but mere change of opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the information from the case records available with the office along with materials. On perusal of the available records, it is found that assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and same was shown in Balance Sheet as Taxes and Duties payable. This has resulted into under- assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/-. 3. On verification of case records, it is found that the assessee had opted VCES for service tax and was liable to pay service tax in excess to the amount already paid since September 2009 amounting to Rs.1,08,38,322/- and it had collected the amount of Rs.64,,01,024/- from his clients. This has resulted into under-assessment of income of Rs.64,01,024/- 4. A p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission on the part of the assessee to ROI u/s. 139 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available. " 10.1 Considering the aforesaid reasons recorded, it appears that the reassessment sought to be initiated mainly on the basis that it has been found that the assessee had not paid service tax amounting to Rs.64,01,024/- during the year and the same was shown in the balance-sheet as tax and duties payable. A further scrutiny of the reasons so recorded would also reveal that the said reasons appears to have been recorded on verification of the case records, more particularly with regard to service tax issue. Meaning thereby, the authorities have revisited the case records already availab....