Case Law Details
A. Sridevi Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Admittedly, the original return filed by the assessee did not reflect the subject matter income, namely, the advance made by the assessee to the said Nagarajan of a sum of Rs.2.75 crores. When the earlier reopening proceedings was initiated with issuance of notice under section 148, the assessee did not file a fresh return by disclosing the subject matter income and on the other hand, she made a request to treat the return already filed for the assessment year 2009-10, as the one filed in response to the said notice. Therefore, it is evident that the original return filed by the assessee, which is sought to be treated as that of the return filed in response to the notice under section 148, is in tact and did not disclose truly and fully the material facts, more particularly, in respect of the subject matter transaction. Therefore, in my considered view the said transaction which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment earlier, is certainly, a tangible material, based on which, the present reopening under section 147, can be resorted to. Admittedly, this material was not existing at the time of original assessment. No doubt, it is sought to be contended that the said material was placed before the Assessing Officer during the earlier reassessment proceedings and however, he has not taken note of the same. I have already pointed out that the earlier reopening of the assessment was based on some other issue and therefore, the assessee is not justified in contending that no new material is available before the Assessing Officer for the present reopening. On the other hand, it is evident that the subject matter material was placed only by default, as the first time before the Assessing Officer, during the hearing of earlier reassessment proceedings in respect of a different issue and therefore, such material is undoubtedly, a new material for the Assessing Officer to resort to reopening of the assessment once again. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the assessee did not file a fresh return in response to Section 148 notice and only relied on the original return. Providing certain materials during the earlier reopening proceedings, cannot be equated with the disclosure of true and full material facts necessary for the assessment, unless such material was already placed on record at the time of filing the original return itself. Therefore, whatever the materials filed during the reassessment proceedings relatable to a particular issue, cannot be considered as the true and full disclosure, unless such material is having any connection with the issue for which such reopening was done. On the other hand, such material, not relatable to the issue for the earlier reopening proceedings, will only take the shape of a new and tangible material before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment once again.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated 26.05.2016, in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner against reopening of the assessment.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
