Case Law Details
E2e Supply Chain Solutions Ltd Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Reassessment order was set aside and remitted back to Respondent due to insufficient details in the assessment order on employee’s cash transactions.
Held: AO contended that on verification of the bank statements, it was observed that credits in the bank account of one of employee were by cash to the tune of Rs.30,32,416/- made by assessee company in account No.067501501730 in M/s ICICI Bank, Vadodara Branch used to transfer money as well as deposited cash for disbursement of the same to lorry drivers and also for other expenses, which clearly attracted the provisions of section 40A(3), in the hands of M/s E2E Supply Chain Solutions Limited, for the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the AY.2014-15. The same had to be added back to the total income of assessee company under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. It was held that although the re-opening of assessment based on the information’s gathered from the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department, it would arm the Department to re-open the Assessment, the ultimate Assessment Order that was passed ought to have give the particulars of the cash transactions of the account of such employee. This had not been mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order giving the particulars of the date of cash transactions made into the account of the said employee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and to pass a fresh order on merits. Department should furnish the date of transfers mentioned in the reasons given for re-opening the respective Assessment and any other information’s based on which, such cash deposits into the account of the said employee was linked to assessee. Since the dispute pertained to the Assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, it was expected that the denovo proceedings would be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By this common order, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood prior to 01.04.2021 on 31.03.2021 for the respective Assessment Years. Earlier, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was sought to be re-opened by virtue of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 which culminated in a speaking order dated 08.12.2021 and Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Reasons that were furnished to the petitioner vide notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 refers to the purported credit in the Bank Account of an employee namely Meruva Sanjeeva Kumar by cash to the tune of Rs.30,32,416/- by the assessee company in Account No.067501501730 in ICICI Bank, Vadodara Branch. Relevant portion of the reasons provided for re-opening of the Assessment reads as under:-
“On verification of the bank statements, it was observed that credits in the bank account of Sri Meruva Sanjeeva Kumar are by cash to the tune of Rs.30,32,416/- made by the assessee company in account No.067501501730 in M/s ICICI Bank, Vadodara Branch used to transfer money as well as deposited cash for disbursement of the same to lorry drivers and also for other expenses, which clearly attracts the provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT act, in the hands of M/s E2E Supply Chain Solutions Limited, for the F.Yr. 2013-14 relevant to the AY.2014-15. The same has to be added back to the total income of the assessee company under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.”
3. Similarly, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, reasons furnished for re-opening of the Assessment vide a separate notice issued on 30.04.2021 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner in its reply has merely referred to the bank transactions with the said employee which has been rejected. The defense that is forthcoming from the Department is that the details of the account need not be furnished at the time of re-opening of the Assessment, as long as there are information available for the Department for re-opening of the Assessment after it was completed.
4. The petitioner has challenged the notice on the ground that the notice has been issued after 01.04.2021 and therefore without jurisdiction and ought to have been completed in accordance with the new provisions as in force from 01.04.2021 in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC Online SC 543.
5. It is also submitted that once the proceedings are without jurisdiction they go to the root of the matter and therefore notwithstanding the fact that speaking order was passed for the respective Assessment Year on 08.12.2021, the further proceedings which has culminated in the impugned Assessment order dated 30.03.2022 are liable to be declared as without jurisdiction and quashed.
6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submits that impugned orders are well reasoned and does not merit any interference in the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has merely attempted to distance its liability by referring to the bank transfers made from its account to the said employee which was not relevant. It is submitted that informations based on which the proceedings were initiated and completed need not be furnished to the petitioner.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
8. Although the re-opening of the Assessment based on the informations gathered from the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department from Tirupathi vide Letter No.ADIT/U-IV/TPT/2019-20/PVR dated 04.02.2020 would arm the Department to re-open the Assessment, the ultimate Assessment Order that was passed ought to have give the particulars of the cash transactions of the account of the said employee namely Meruva Sanjeeva Kumar. This has not been mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order giving the particulars of the date of cash transactions made into the account of the said employee namely Meruva Sanjeeva Kumar. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and to pass a fresh order on merits. The Department shall furnish the date of transfers mentioned in the reasons given for re-opening the respective Assessment and any other informations based on which, such cash deposits into the account of the said employee is linked to the petitioner. Since the dispute pertains to the Assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, it is expected that the denovo proceedings will be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
