TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered under the Companies Act and an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Pertaining to the assessment year 2020-2021, the petitioner submitted returns. The same was subjected to scrutiny and as per Ext.P12 order of assessment, it was finalized. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, where it was proposed to re-assess the petitioner, as according to the assessing authority, as per the information received by them, certain income has escaped from the assessment. Annexure to Ext.P1 notice indicates the specific reasons, based on which, such a re-assessment was proposed. It was to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in case explanation offered by the petitioner finds no favour with the said authority, the petitioner may be allowed an opportunity to file another reply and also an opportunity be extended to be heard. 4. However, the assessing authority proceeded to pass the order as per Ext.P10 under Section 148A (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P10, even though Ext.P6 Email and the documents produced along with the same were referred to, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the assessing authority proceeded to determine the taxability of the amount deducted by the petitioner as "Marked to Market valuation of hedge reserve". This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecified as the audit objection received by the assessing officer, whereas in Ext.P1 show-cause notice, there is no reference of any audit objection. Therefore, the same is not in compliance of the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. 8. Secondly, it was contended that, despite the fact that the petitioner had offered a clear explanation with regard to the deduction of amount of Rs. 8,05,92,988/- towards "Marked to Market valuation of hedge reserve", by submitting Ext.P6 along with Exts.P7 and P8, to substantiate such explanation, the same has not been referred to in Ext.P10 order. It is pointed out that, instead of answering the said explanation, the assessing authority proceeded to determine the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the learned standing counsel, the computation statements are not statutory documents and therefore, it was not obligatory for the assessing authority to consider the same, in the absence of any other documents referred to in the statute. Therefore, actions of the respondents are justified. 11. I have carefully gone through the records, perused the relevant statutory provisions and considered the contentions of both sides. When it comes to the first question, namely, the obligation regarding the disclosure of the information, on carefully going through the statutory stipulations contained in Section 148A, I find merit in the submission of the learned standing counsel. This is because, there is nothing in the said provision that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P7 and P8 computation statements, the said contention is substantiated. On going through Ext.P1 show-cause notice, it can be seen that the assessing authority was proceeding on the assumption that the amount referred to above was deducted by the petitioner while submitting the returns for the assessment year 2020-2021, in view of the fact that, the amount is not assesseble to tax. In Ext.P10 order also, what was considered by the assessing authority was the taxability of the amounts specified therein. 13. In fact, going by the explanation offered by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, coupled with the contents of Exts.P7 and P8, it can be seen that, it was not the case of the petitioner that, the amount specified above was not taxable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason mentioned in Ext.P10 for not considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. Secondly, as far as the returns are concerned, those are available with the assessing authority and it could be verified by the assessing authority to determine the correctness of the explanation offered by the petitioner as per Ext.P6. Another aspect highlighted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents is that, the computation statements are not statutory documents and therefore, in the case of computation statements produced by the petitioner in Exts.P7 and P8, there is no obligation on the part of the assessing authority to consider the same. However, the said statements submitted by the petitioner to show that, that amount which is the....