Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Objection Against Reopening Of Income Tax Assessment

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Objection Against Reopening Of Income Tax Assessment

The Respondent could not satisfy the Court which new material or documents were not produced by the Petitioner – Assessee before the Assessing Officer

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order rejecting Petitioner's objection against the reopening of assessment u/S 147 and the subsequent notice u/S 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

A single-judge court of Justice MD. Nizamuddin in the High Court of Calcutta dealt with a petition titled Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd v Income Tax Officer & Ors.

The Petitioner – Assessee through the petition had challenged the notice issued u/S 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the order rejecting Petitioner's objection against the reopening of assessment u/S 147 of the Act and subsequent notice u/S 142(1) of the Act relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.

It was submitted by the Petitioner – Assessee that the Assessing Officer had recorded that the Assessee had filed a copy of accounts along with required materials with the return of income to complete the assessment where various information/materials were disclosed. The Petitioner – Assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer wanted to reopen the assessment u/S 143(3) beyond four years without fulfilling the criteria for the same. It further contended that the issue which was involved related to a Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) of the Petitioner which did not fall in the category of the provisions of Explanation (I) to Section 115JB(2) of the Act as recorded by the Assessing Officer.

The Respondent – Authorities agreed that the Petitioner – Assessee had filed a copy of accounts along with required materials with the return of income to complete the assessment where various information/materials were disclosed. Thus, the Respondent could not satisfy the Court which new material or documents were not produced by the Petitioner – Assessee before the Assessing Officer.

The Court found the submissions of the Respondent – Authorities to be not convincing and unacceptable. It took into account the Petitioner – Assessee's submissions and therefore, set aside the order rejecting Petitioner's objection against the reopening of assessment u/S 147 of the Act and the subsequent notice u/S 142(1) of the Act.

The Court further remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the Petitioner's contention about the change of opinion and pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner that would determine the fate of the subsequent proceeding u/S 147 of the Act.