Indian Syntans Investments ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10814 Mad

                                                                           W.P.No.14021 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 28.04.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                              W.P.No.14021 of 2017
                                                      and
                                          W.M.PNos.15232 & 15233 of 2017

                     Indian Syntans Investments Private Limited,
                     Represented by
                     its Director Mr.N.Narayanan
                     No.71, Third Main Road,
                     Kasturba Nagar, Adyar,
                     Chennai – 600 020                                                ..Petitioner
                                                         vs

                     The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
                     Company Circle II (3)
                     121, Nungambakkam High Road,
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                              ..Respondent


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records on the files of the
                     respondent and quash the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in PAN
                     No.AAACI1775K dated 30.03.2010 and consequentially quash the
                     proceedings in PAN No.AAACI1775K / A.Y-2005-06 dated 20.04.2017 as
                     illegal and without jurisdiction.


                     1/22



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              W.P.No.14021 of 2017



                                     For Petitioner   : Mr.R.Sivaraman

                                     For Respondent : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan
                                                      Senior Standing counsel
                                                      [For Income Tax]


                                                         ORDER

The initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax

Act by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in

proceedings dated 30.03.2010 and the consequential proceedings dated

20.04.2017 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited company, carrying on business

as non banking financial company, dealing in investments, broking in shares

and securities, land and buildings etc., For the assessment year 2005-06, the

petitioner company had filed its return of income on 20.10.2005, admitting a

total income of Rs.3,90,15,137/-. Subsequently, the assessment was taken

up for scrutiny together with calling certain details.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

3. The respondent issued a notice under Section 148 for reopening of

assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06 on 30.03.2010. The petitioner

company filed a letter dated 31.03.2010, to treat the return filed by the

petitioner company on 28.10.2005 as the return filed in response to the

notice under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner company, in the said

letter, made a request to the respondents to furnish reasons to believe that

income liable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

147 of the Act. The respondent in their letter dated 05.05.2010, furnished

reasons for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06.

4. The petitioner company, by their letter dated 27.05.2010, furnished

their detailed reply along with annexure, requesting the respondent to drop

the proceedings. However, the reply had not been considered and issued

notice under Section 143 (2) dated 18.11.2010, fixing the date of hearing on

25.11.2010. The petitioner filed W.P.No.27139 of 2010 and this Court

directed the respondent to consider the legal submissions taken by the

petitioner on the aspect of jurisdiction by giving the assessee an opportunity

to place their submissions. But, the writ petition was dismissed. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2646 of 2010 and the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court passed an order as follows:

“This writ appeal is disposed of by modifying the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge and setting aside only impugned order dated 30.03.2010. We confirm the direction to the respondent to consider the objections on the assumption of jurisdiction after granting the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pass a speaking order on the aspect of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

5. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner

company by their letter dated 14.02.2017, had filed detailed objections to

the reopening of the assessment and sought for personal hearing before the

respondent. However, the respondent without considering the directions

passed by this Court nor considering the legal objections raised by the writ

petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, rejecting the

objections filed by the petitioner. Challenging the said impugned order

dated 20.04.2017 as well as the notice dated 30.03.2010, the present writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

petition is filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner

mainly contended that the element of reasons to believe as contemplated

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is absolutely missing in the

present case. In fact, it is a change of opinion as the material facts now

relied on in the impugned order for reopening of assessment were made

available by the petitioner even during the original assessment for the year

2005-06.

7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the return of

income, wherein the petitioner solicited the attention of this Court with

reference to the IL & FS Growth & Value fund Semi Annual Dividend

Redemption of units and the dividend received and loss occurred et., All

such particulars made available in the return of income were relied on by the

petitioners established that the Assessing Officer has no reason to believe

for reopening of assessment. Thus, the initiation of proceedings under

Section 147 is change of opinion.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the returns

of income and the particulars stated therein, compared the same with the

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act and more

specifically, the reasons as recorded by the respondent. By comparison, it is

contended that both are one and the same and therefore, it is only a change

of opinion. Relying on the said details, the learned counsel for the petitioner

made a submission that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the

High Court of madras in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd., Vs. ACIT, reported

in (2016) 65 taxmann.com 21 (Madras), wherein the Court held as follows:

“30. As we have indicated earlier, cases where the reopening is found to be within the parameters of the prescription contained in Sections 147 and 148, the additions made subsequently in the course of the proceedings, have always been upheld by Courts. But, where the reopening of assessment cannot stand on the strength of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2), the Revenue cannot seek to justify the reopening, by finding some point or the other post-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

facto after the reopening of assessment.

31. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 148 and Explanation 3 under Section 147 contemplate two entry points or two gate ways. The first entry point or the outer gate is the formation of an opinion that there was some income, which escaped assessment and which is reflected in the reasons recorded under Section 148(2). The Assessing Officer will be permitted entry through this outer gate only if he satisfies three criteria namely (i) the existence of a reason to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment (ii) the recording of reasons under Section 148(2) and (iii) the issuing of notice under Section 148(1). Once the Assessing Officer satisfies these three criteria, he is allowed entry through the outer gate or the first check-post. The moment he has gained entry lawfully through the first check-post, the proceedings for reassessment begin. In the course of those proceedings, if issues other than those, which triggered the formation of his opinion under Section 147, come to his notice, he would be permitted, by virtue of Explanation 3, to gain entry into all other check-posts located within the prohibited area. Therefore, Explanation 3 comes into play only after the Assessing Officer gains entry through the first door. If the Assessing Officer is imagined to be an air passenger, travelling by flight to another destination, his reason to believe, his

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

recording of reasons and the issuance of notice can be compared to a valid ticket that he holds. Only if he holds such a valid ticket, he will be permitted entry into the airport. After gaining entry into the airport, he may also be permitted to visit restaurants, dutyfree shops etc., before boarding the flight. His access to the facilities inside the airport is dependent upon his right of entry into the airport. This is how Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 148 and Explanation 3 to Section 147 have to be understood.”

10. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Tread

(India) Ltd., reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 254 (Madras), the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

“24.The short question, which falls for consideration, is whether the reopening of the assessments both within four years and beyond four years could have been done for the reasons assigned by the Revenue. We are required to take a decision in respect of the other substantial questions of law, after deciding the first question and if this question is answered in favour of the Revenue, then we may be required to examine the other substantial questions of law. However, if we answer the said question in favour of the assessee, then

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

nothing further remains to be decided in these appeals. As pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment, has not disclosed the reasons for reopening. This is evident from the assessment order dated 05.03.1999, which only states that the assessment was reopened to consider certain points with prior permission of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, the basic requirement for recording reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is absent in the instance case, which would be sufficient to hold that the reopening proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

35.In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the reopening proceedings was wholly without jurisdiction and we affirm the view taken by the Tribunal and accordingly, dismiss all the tax cases (appeals) filed by the Revenue by answering the first substantial question of law as framed above in favour of the assessee and hold that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to reopen the assessment for all the assessment years. Consequently the other substantial questions of law as framed are left open.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner

of Income Tax Vs. Corporation Bank Limited, reported in (2002) 122

Taxman 826 (SC), held as follows:

“6. Turning attention to the first question as regards the provisions under Section 147(a) be it noted and as the facts depict, there is no failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars pertaining to the above noted sum as not recoverable for the relevant accounting year and the statements filed along with the original return disclosed the full details of the aforesaid account. There is, therefore, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts necessary for the assessment years for the respective years and as such Section 147(a) has no manner of application and is not attracted in the facts of the matter under consideration. The High Court on consideration of the facts came to the conclusion that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the said finding and we also record our concurrence therewith”

12. In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ICICI

Securities Primary Dealership Limited, reported in (2012) 24

taxmann.com 310 (SC), it is stated as follows :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

“Section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – General – Assessment year 1999-2000 – Assessing Officer completed assessment of assessee under Section 143(3) after taking into consideration account furnished by assessee – After lapse of four years from relevant assessment year Assessing Officer reopened assessment of assessee on ground that during relevant year assessee company had incurred a loss in trading in share, which was a speculative one and therefore, chargeable to tax – Accordingly, passed order under Section 147 – Whether since after a mere re-look of accounts which were earlier furnished by assessee, Assessing officer had come to conclusion that income had escaped assessment, same was not permissible under Section 147 as it was clearly a change of opinion – Held, yes – Whether therefore, order reopening assessment was not permissible – Held, yes.”

13. Relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner is of an opinion that case on hand is a change of opinion by the

Assessing Officer and absolutely, there is no reason to believe.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

14. The respondents filed their counter affidavit, by stating that the

writ petition is untenable. The respondents have stated that the allegation of

petitioner that its claim regarding Section 94(7) was examined by the

respondent during the course of original proceedings is against facts and

records. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to substantiate the

claim of exemption on this issue in the original assessment. It is stated that

two sheets of papers at page nos.142 & 143 of the typed set filed by the

petitioners in the present writ petition were filed subsequently to the

completion of original assessment proceeding and that is the reason why the

petitioner not mentioned date of submission of the document in the index to

typed set of papers. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that the details of two

transaction coming under the Short term Capital gains were furnished and

respondents had completed the Assessment under Section 143 (3) on

29.11.2007, after considering the same is absolutely incorrect. It is

contended that the petitioner has come before the Courts with unclean hands

and therefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

15. The respondent has stated that with regard to the petitioner's claim

under Section 94 (7) was formed during the original assessment proceedings

and therefore, the petitioner's allegations that the revision of assessment is

based on the change of opinion is wrong and cannot be sustained. It is

contended that the issues discussed in the reasons recorded for reopening

was not considered during the course of original assessment proceedings,

since no opinion was formed on such issues during the course of original

assessment proceedings. Thus, there is no question of change of opinion as

alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner is not disputing the reasons given

by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. There is no

mandatory condition that tangible material for the reopening of the

assessment should come from external source. In the present case, the

reopening is done within four years from the end of the assessment year.

Thus, Proviso to Section 147 is not applicable.

16. It is further contended that the reopening on the basis of Audit

objections was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

CIT Vs. P.V.S.Beedies Pvt Ltd., reported in 237 ITR 13.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

17. The respondent has duly considered all the objections and case

laws submitted by the petitioner. In the impugned order dated 20.04.2017,

some of the decisions cited by the petitioner were not discussed as they

pertain to reopening after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant

assessment year and in such proviso 147 is applicable. However, in the

present case, reopening has been made within four years from the end of the

Assessment Year. Thus, the respondent has duly complied with the orders of

this Court. The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has to now file

objections on the merits of the issues and convince the Assessing officer

about the merits of its claim and therefore, the Assessment officer is duty

bound to pass revised order either accepting or rejecting the claim of the

writ petitioner.

18. The respondent had not formed any opinion on any of the issues

that are now the subject matter of proceedings under Section 147 at the time

of original assessment. Section 94(7) was substituted with effect from 1st

April 2005. Thus, any assessment made contrary to the said provision is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

liable to be reopened. The petitioner has claimed loss on transfer of shares

from stock in Trade to investments. It is settled position that one cannot earn

income from himself. Hence, the Assessing Officer followed the decision of

Calcutta High Court to reopen the assessment. The petitioner fails to note

that the direction issued by the RBI cannot override the proviso of Income

Tax Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern

Technologies Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 577.

19. When an income liable to tax has been escaped from assessment

in the original assessment proceedings due to the oversight and inadvertence

or mistake committed by the Assessing Officer, still he has the jurisdiction

to reopen the assessment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

20. Relying on all these grounds, the respondent sought for the

dismissal of the writ petition.

21. Relying on the above contentions, made a submission that the

case on hand is the case of reopening within a period of four years and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

therefore, the contention of the petitioners are liable to be rejected.

22. The Courts have held that disputed facts and circumstances

cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings and once, there is a reason to

believe that the income has escaped from assessment, then the Assessing

officer is empowered to institute proceedings under Section 147 and further,

certain materials were identified by the Assessing officer are provided cause

for reopening of assessment by initiation under Section 147 of the Act and

as such there is no infirmity. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. Perusal of the reasons provided by the Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, in proceedings dated 05.05.2010, the same reveals that the

assessee has claimed loss of Rs.53,34,895/- on transfer of shares from

trading to investment. This is an internal transfer of conversion of certain

shares and securities held as stock in trade into investments. The assessee

has transferred shares of Rs.6,81,08,496/- from trading account to

investment account (as against nil last year). The assessee has not given any

computation as to how the loss came to be incurred. The loss on conversion

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

of shares and securities held as stock in trade into investment is not an

allowable deduction. The deduction claimed by the assessee is therefore

erroneous and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

due to this incorrect claim.

24. In Annexure 'A' to Audit Report dated 21.06.2004 for Assessment

Year 2004-05, the auditors have specifically stated that company has taken

loan from financial institution and purchases shares for Rs.165.19 lakhs,

which were treated as long term investments. However, no interest

disallowance has been considered, though the learned counsel for the

petitioner states that the Audit report cannot be a source for initiation of

proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.

25. This Court is of the considered opinion that the source of

information may be irrelevant for the purpose of initiation of proceedings

under Section 147 of the Act. Section 147 unambiguously enumerates that if

the Assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to

tax has escaped assessment for any Assessment Year. Further the Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

contemplates 'any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the

proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation

allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment

year concerned'.

26. Explanation 1 to Section 147 contemplates that “Production

before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which

material evidence could with due diligence havebeen discovered by the

Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the

meaning of the foregoing proviso. Therefore, even in case, where certain

informations were drawn after passing of the assessment order and materials

were identified, which all are not adjudicated, then the Assessing officer has

reason to believe for reopening of the assessment. Undoubtedly, the power

under Section 147 for the Assessing Officer is wider enough to intervene in

all the cases, where any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

for any assessment year. The escaped assessment includes even the subject

matters considered in the assessment, which all are escaped, the word

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

"escape" undertakes that it is not only the materials, which were not

adjudicated during the original assessment but the materials adjudicated and

certain aspects escaped from assessment during such original assessment.

Thus, it is made clear that even the material facts, which all are provided by

the assessee during the original adjudication and the Assessing Officer also

passed an order under Section 143(3)of the Act, thereafter, if any materials

are made available to establish that any income chargeable to tax has

escaped assessment for the assessment year, then the Assessing officer is

well within his power to institute proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.

27. It is insufficient that the assessee has compared the reasons

stipulated in the order by the respondents with reference to certain

informations provided in the original assessment order. Beyond such

comparable factors, with reference to the original assessment order and the

reasons furnished for reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer, if

found any new materials, which were not considered, though provided,

constitute a cause for 'reason to believe' regarding the income escaped

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

assessment, then also the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen the

assessment by invoking the powers under Section 147 of the Act.

28. Undoubtedly, the informations or materials etc., for reopening of

the assessment must be new and not considered by the Assessing Officer

during the original assessment. However, the word 'New' does not mean that

there is an impediment to cull out the new facts from the informations or

materials provided by the assessee at the time of original assessment. Even

the materials, facts, informations, which were made available during the

original assessment and not considered by the Assessing Officer, while

passing the assessment order and it constitute a reason to believe regarding

the escapement, then also, the Assessing Officer may have reason to believe

for reopening of the assessment.

29. At the outset, the power conferred on the Assessing Officer under

Section 147 is wider enough to cover the informations, materials and

evidences, which were not considered during the original assessment and

there is a reason to believe that such non-consideration constitute a cause

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

for reopening of assessment.

30. The very purpose and object of the proviso under Section 147 is

to ensure that the assessee pays the income tax in the manner prescribed

under the Statute and therefore, the Courts are expected to be cautious,

while dealing with such intricacies and the disputed facts, which all are to

be adjudicated by the competent authority by following the procedures as

contemplated. High Court shall scrutinize the processes, through which, a

decision is taken by the competent authorities with reference to the

provisions of the Statute and the established principles and certainly, not the

decision itself. Roving enquiry cannot be undertaken by the High Court in a

writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contrarily,

the assessee must be provided with an opportunity to putforth his case

before the Assessing Officer, who in turn, is bound to consider all the

documents and evidences available and pass appropriate orders.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14021 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Kak

31. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in forming an opinion that the

petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of

interfering with the initiation of proceedings for reopening of assessment

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition

fails and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.04.2021

Kak Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order

To

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II (3) 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

W.P.No.14021 of 2017

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/