Case Law Details
Thirveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
Reassessment was justified if assessee failed to make full, true disclosure of all material facts during original assessment
Conclusion: Where assessee had not made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the original assessment, the reopening of the assessment was not based on the change of opinion but the facts which emanated after the rectification application was filed by assessee and it was incorrect on the part of assessee to state that the reopening of the original assessment was on assumptions and presumptions.
Held: AO pointed out that there was a huge mismatch in receipts appearing in Form 26AS vis-a-vis receipts credited in P&L account. The receipts and TDS from the certain parties were not appearing in Form 26AS whereas it was claimed by assessee in the rectification application. AO had recorded that assessee had claimed less TDS in respect of some other deductors and thereby suppressed corresponding receipts to that extent and during the assessment proceedings, assessee did not produce the accurate particulars of income and TDS claimed and it was only after the rectification application was filed the issue cropped up. Further AO had noted from the rectification application that assessee had claimed TDS of Rs.6,39,531/- which was neither claimed in the return under Section 143(1) nor during the assessment proceedings. Thus, assessee had not made full and true disclosure during the scrutiny assessment, re-assessment could be initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the first Proviso to Section 147. It was held that assessee had not made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the original assessment, the reopening of the assessment was not based on the change of opinion but the facts which emanated after the rectification application was filed by assessee and it was incorrect on the part of assessee to state that the reopening of the original assessment was on assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, assessee could not be heard to say that they could advance their case based on certain interim directions issued in the writ petitions when the cases were pending before the Single Bench. Thus, the reopening proceedings had been upheld and assessee should cooperate in the re-assessment to be done by AO.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
