TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48A(3) of the Act. FACTS: 4. The petitioner filed its return of in come under section 139 of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 on 27.02.2022 declaring its total income of Rs. 1,04,31,37,610/- followed by filing of a revised return of income on 11.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 1,04,31,37,610/- and the same has been processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 04.10.2022 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was selected for complete scrutiny, pursuant to which the petitioner was served with notice dated 28.06.2022 under section 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner received the show cause notice dated 13.12.2023 under section 143(3) of the Act proposing certain variations prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner in the ongoing assessment proceedings for the year under consideration. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice vide letter dated 19.12.2023 providing detailed explanations along with supporting documents in respect of each issue raised therein. 5. Thereafter, the Draft Assessment Order dated28.12.2023 under section 144C(1) of the Act came to be passed proposing variation to the returned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the period for filing objections expires and, therefore, once an assessee files objections (or accepts the draft, as the case may be), the AO must complete the assessment by the statutory deadline and in the facts of the present case, the AO has not passed any such order. He has submitted that in other words, the AO has accepted the reply of the petitioner and has chosen not to pass any order. 8. It is contended that after the DraftAssessment Order dated 28.12.2023 was passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act, the AO has accepted the reply of the petitioner and has chosen not to pass any adverse order or for that matter no order at all. He has submitted that it is a settled principle of law that if an issue is raised and discussed in the earlier proceedings, the same cannot be revisited in the reassessment proceedings for assuming jurisdiction even when the issue is not discussed in the body of assessment and in the present case, the AO has not passed any order at all, either by accepting the reply or simply an oversight and hence, Under both the circumstances, reassessment cannot be initiated. 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani thereafter, has submitted that reopening of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 proposed dis-allowance of expenditure. 13. The petitioner accordingly, responded to such notice vide reply dated 19.12.2023 and explained its depreciation claimed on addition to fixed assets, unexplained expenditure on account of contract payments, dis-allowance of expenditure etc. The proceedings culminated into the Draft Assessment Order under section 144C(1) of the Act, which was passed on 28.12.2023 in which variation was proposed on the basis of inference drawn on account of adjustment determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Variation in respect of TP adjustment to the extent of Rs. 4,98,982/- and with respect to dis-allowance of additional depreciation claimed on fixed assets to the tune of Rs. 3,48,402/were determined by holding that petitioner has under- reported his income and to such extent, penalty proceedings were also initiated. 14. The petitioner vide communication dated 24.01.2024 written to the AO, clarified that he would not like to raise any objection before the DRP and instead intends to file an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order passed under section 143(C) of the Act. The things stopped at that stage and the proceedings ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decisions to the facts of the present case, the inescapable conclusion that would have to be reached is that while assessment proceedings remain inchoate, no fresh evidence or material' could possibly be unearthed. If any such material or evidence is available, there would be no restrictions or constraints on its being taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer for framing the then current assessment. If the assessment is not framed before the expiry of the period of limitation for a particular assessment year, it would have to be assumed that since proceedings had not been opened under section 143(2), the return had been accepted as correct. It may be argued that thereafter recourse could be taken to section 147, provided fresh material had been received by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. So far as the present case is concerned we are of the view that it is evident that, faced with severe paucity of time, the Assessing Officer had attempted to travel the path of section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge the time available for framing the assessment. This is not permissible in law." 19. Thus, in the pres....