In a partial relief to the Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd, the Calcutta High Court quashed the reassessment Order rejecting objection against the recorded reason for reopening of assessment.
The petitioner, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the impugned notice dated 17th March 2020 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment year 2013-14 and impugned order dated 30th July 2021 rejecting the objection of the petitioner against the recorded reason for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, the counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the criteria of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act that is, omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly his income in course of regular assessment has not been fulfilled and the reason recorded shows that the Assessing Officer concerned himself has recorded that it was true that the assessee had filed copy of accounts along with required materials with the return of income to complete the assessment where various information/materials were disclosed.
Mr. S.N. Dutta could not satisfy this Court about what new material of documents came into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which was not produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in course of regular assessment. Mr. Dutta in support of his contention also relies on Explanations (I) and (III) under Section 147 of the Act.
The single-judge bench of Justice Md Nizamuddin set aside the impugned order dated July 30, 2021, of rejecting the objection of the petitioner to the recorded reason and subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and remand the case to the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose and only to the extent to reconsider the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal on the issue in question in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6, Kolkata Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2016) 72 taxmann.com 116 (Kolkata-Trib.) and also the contention of the petitioner about the change of opinion and pass a fresh speaking order after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The subsequent proceeding under Section 147 of the Act will depend upon the fresh order to be passed by the respondent-Assessing Officer concerned after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
