TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) for brevity) has erred in issuing the order under section 250 of the Act in the manner passed by it. 2. Grounds relating to jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act 2.1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not appreciating that an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for the relevant assessment year and the appellant had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for such assessment. 2.2. The learned assessing officer has erred in reassessing the income for the assessment year after the limitation period of four years from the end of the assessment year, without demonstrating how the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, as provided in the first proviso to the erstwhile section 147 2.3. The learned assessing officer has failed to appreciate that details of reversal of provisions of earlier years was furnished during the original assessment proceedings. The learned assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is against the principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 5. Ground relating to reversal of provisions for interest on PF, provisions for doubtful advances and provision for expenses. 5.1. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 1,19,34,089 being reversal of provision for PF interest without appreciating that it was disallowed in the return of income of earlier assessment year. 5.2. The learned assessing officer has erred in holding that the disallowance of provision for PF interest in AY 2013-14, was made on account of being penal in nature. 5.3. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 1,06,75,227 being reversal of provision for doubtful advances without appreciating that it was disallowed in the return of income of earlier assessment years. 5.4. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 2,77,89,097 being reversal of provision for expenses disallowed in the return of income of earlier assessment years under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. 5.5. The learned assessing officer has erred in holding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....electronically on 26.11.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 174,20,52,600/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 143,36,47,080/- under the MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act. The return was thereafter processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A Transfer Pricing reference was also made. The Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") passed an order u/s 92CA of the Act on 31.10.2017 making transfer pricing adjustment and thereafter the draft assessment order was issued on 26.12.2017. The company filed a review application before ld. DRP on 25.1.2018 against the draft assessment order. The ld. DRP issued its direction vide an order dated 14.9.2018. The TPO accordingly issued an order giving effect to ld. DRP's direction. Finally, the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act were completed vide order dated 29.10.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act. 3.1. Thereafter, ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) Bangalore issued a notice dated 31.3.2021 u/s 148 of the Act and reopened the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against which the assessee have again filed the return of income on 28.4.2021. The stated reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew law. The court further held that the notices issued under the old provisions were to be considered as show cause notices u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Therefore relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is held by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 31.3.2021 are valid and are not vitiated on the account that it was received on 1.4.2021. Further, with regard to the argument of the assessee that reopening is invalid since the assessment was earlier completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and a detailed order was passed after examination of the issues by the AO, the reopening of the assessment after 4 years is bad in law. The assessee's main contention was the satisfaction of the AO and is reason to believe was based on change of opinion and hence not valid. The ld. CIT(A) held that because the assessee had filed the audit report and the financial statements which included the information regarding the reversal of provisions, it does not amount to full and true disclosure of all material facts. It needs to be seen whether the AO at the time apply his mind to the issue of the reversal of the provisions and then arrived at a reason known that the act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l advances and provision for expenses. We first take up the legal ground for adjudication. It is undisputed fact that the assessment order in the case of the assessee passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 29.10.2018. The legal issue in this appeal relates to whether AO can reassess the income of the assessee after limitation period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year where the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has already been passed. On going through the original assessment proceedings, we find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 3.10.2016 asking to submit a detailed note showing the movements in all the provisions during the year, amount added, amount utilized, etc. The copy of which is reproduced below for ease of reference and record: 4.1 Further, in response to the said notice, the assessee has also filed reply dated 18.10.2016 stating therein the note on movement of provisions, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and record: 4.2 Further, in reply dated 16.12.2017, the assessee has also produced details of disallowances made u/s 40(a) of the Act in assessment year 2013-14 along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of (Hewlett-Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. ITA No.406/2007). We are of the opinion that there is no new /fresh tangible material in the possession of the AO on the basis of which AO could have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment or had been not assessed. In our opinion, the AO has also not demonstrated what new tangible material came before him after passing the original assessment order which has reason him to believe that the income has escaped assessment. In our view, this is nothing but an attempt to review of his own order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act based on change of opinion. 4.5 Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Barkhat Ali Khan Bahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239(SC) in which it is held that having second thoughts on the same material and omission to draw the correct legal presumption during the original assessment do not warrant the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582(SC) held that when the primary facts necessary for the assessment are fully and truly dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court on 9th Jan, 2025 ============= Document 1 Annesure 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Circle-3(1)(2) Ronchi No. 228. 2ºº Flour BMITC Building, SUR Rood. Deted: 03.10.2016 WW:AAACH7164B/ACIT-C-3(1) (3)/ 342(1)/ 16-17/C-121 Notice under section 142[1] r.w.s. 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Principal Olfert Hewlett Packard thalas Servare Operation Pravite Lacated Survey No 142. WHITEFIELD ROAD Bangalore-SuQu IK Ili erection with the aswesten" processes di soir ct for the A.Y.2014-15. a luiring has boch Soll vặt ar curler dkde. In cina youi have tắc Hadde The Popuand submissaas till date, you are requested Further, az perusal of the material available sin recued, following issales/discrepancies have been found ht suur Äast. The ute med in fattishi bu; the en , uf Inaing) . aplantations for the issues imentonied belaj aime salat rivala substantiating documents - Large as either desistas chatted un set .. BPP creating a loss without am income in Proff & . .. - . . - Shismate h at amount paid to related pereitis tys 40AtZithe reported in Audit Report and ITR Prvwipe erifitest br Profit & Lins account comoder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the AY 2014-15. Commissioni of Income Tax Range-3(1). * g*/ Bengaluru 18 OCT 2015 Document 4 BMR & Associates LLP Chartered Accountants Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Citde- 3(1)(2) Ciaober 18, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Further, we submit the following details as sought by your goodself in the subject notice: High ratio of refund to TDS We wish to submit that the refund claimed in the return of income ("ROI") is primarily arising on account of excess advance tax remitted for the AY 2014-15. Consequentially, the same has been claimed as refund in the ROI. 2. Large other expenses claimed in the profit and loss account in this regard, we wish to submit that the Company has disclosed an amount of Rs 1,313,875,871 as other expenses under the schedule "Part A - P&L' of the ROI filed for the AY 2014-15. In this connection, a summary containing breakup of the aforesaid expenses have been enclosed as Annexure 2. 3. Large any other deduction claimed in Schedule BP creating a loss without any income in profit and loss account In this regard, we wish to submit that in the ROI for the AY 2014-15, the Company has made a claim under 'Schedule BP' of an amount of ....