Hede Ferrominas Pvt.ltd, Rep. By Authorised Directorarvind Shamsunder Amonkar v. Asst. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 1(1)Panaji And Anr

Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.104 OF 2022 HEDE FERROMINAS PVT.LTD, REP. BY AUTHORISED DIRECTORARVIND SHAMSUNDER AMONKAR ... PETITIONER Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)PANAJI AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS Mr. Gaurang D. Panandiker, Advocate for the Petitioner.Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM :M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE :11[th] OCTOBER 2022 ORAL ORDER : (Per M.S. SONAK, J.) 1.Heard Mr Panandiker for the Petitioner and Ms Susan Linharesfor the respondents. 2.The petitioner questions the impugned notice dated16.03.2022 seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year2015-16. 3.On 27.03.2021, the Petitioner was issued a notice underSection 148 by respondent no.1 stating that respondent no.1 hasreasons to believe that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year2015-16 has escaped assessment. This notice required the Petitioner tofile returns within 30 days. 4.Despite receipt of the above notice, the Petitioner did notbother to file any returns within 30 days. Almost eight months later,that is, on 03.01.2022, the Petitioner was served with a notice underSection 142(1) from ITI requiring the Petitioner to furnish accountsand documents to enable the respondents to proceed with thereassessment in terms of the notice dated 27.03.2021, which thePetitioner had not bothered to respond. 5.At this belated stage, the Petitioner, vide communication dated14.01.2022, applied for a week to compile the data and makenecessary submissions. Finally, on 21.01.2022, the Petitioner filed areturn of income in compliance with the notice under Section 148and requested reasons to support the reopening. 6.On 18.02.2022, the Petitioner was served with the notice underSection 143(2) of the IT Act, along with reasons for reopening ofassessment. The Petitioner filed objections on 23.02.2022, which weredisposed of vide impugned notice dated 16.03.2022. Hence, thepresent Petition. 7.Mr Panandiker submits that the delay in filing the return inpursuance of notice dated 27.03.2021 is not fatal because therespondents can always levy interest or even penalty in terms of section234A of the Income Tax Act. He submits that the first reason for thealleged receipt of 6,74,30,000/- by the Petitioner during Assessment₹Year 2015-16 is not borne out from Form 26AS. Therefore, this couldnot have been a reason for the reopening of the assessment. 8.Mr Panandiker further submits that though the Petitioner hadnot filed any returns during Assessment Year 2015-16, it was the caseof the Petitioner that it had incurred losses and had no intention ofcarrying forward such losses. Therefore, he submitted that there wasno legal requirement to file a return. 9.Based on the above, Mr Panandiker submits that there are noreasons or valid reasons for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, hepresents that the impugned notice/order must be set aside in suchcircumstances. 10.Ms S. Linhares counters the submissions made by MrPanandiker. She submits that the Petitioner did not bother to file anyreturns for Assessment Year 2015-16 and, therefore, the provision ofSection 147 of the IT Act was squarely attracted. She points out thatthe Petitioner did not bother responding to the notice dated27.03.2021 within the prescribed period. She submits that the delayed 9.Based on the above, Mr Panandiker submits that there are noreasons or valid reasons for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, hepresents that the impugned notice/order must be set aside in suchcircumstances. 10.Ms S. Linhares counters the submissions made by MrPanandiker. She submits that the Petitioner did not bother to file anyreturns for Assessment Year 2015-16 and, therefore, the provision ofSection 147 of the IT Act was squarely attracted. She points out thatthe Petitioner did not bother responding to the notice dated27.03.2021 within the prescribed period. She submits that the delayed return filed by the Petitioner was only to frustrate the time limitsprescribed to the Assessing Officers for completing the assessment. Shesubmits that there is clear information about the Petitioner receivingan amount of 2.74 crores and interest of 2,15,107/-. Coupled with₹₹the fact that no returns were filed for the relevant Assessment Year, thiswas a clear case of income escaping assessment. Ms Linhares states thatthe return filed by the Petitioner makes it clear that all defences andexplanations of the Petitioner would be considered during thereassessment proceedings. Based on all these, Ms Linhares submits thatthis Petition may be dismissed. 11.The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12.In this case, there are two significant circumstances based onwhich the Petitioner cannot expect this Court to exercise itsextraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction in its favour. But, apartfrom these circumstances, other reasons disentitle the Petitioner fromany relief in this Petition. 13.Firstly, the Petitioner did not bother to file any returns duringAssessment Year 2015-16. Secondly, the Petitioner did not bother tofile any response to the notice dated 27.03.2021 seeking to reopen theassessment within the time limit allowed to the Petitioner. ThePetitioner filed returns only after eight months at the stage when thetime limit for completing the reassessment proceedings was almost due to conclude. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer rightlyinvoked the principle in Union of India V/s. Major General Madan1Lal Yadav. 14.Discretion apart, we find that this is a matter where theexplanation (2) to Section 147 of the IT Act would apply. Thisexplanation inter alia provides that where no return of income hasbeen furnished by the assessee although his total income or the totalincome of any other person in respect of which he is assessable underthis Act during the previous year exceeded with a maximum amountwhich is not chargeable to income-tax, the same shall also be deemedto be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 15.The Petitioner has not explained the amount of 2,15,107/-.₹The Petitioner may have its own version about the receipt of theamount of 6.74 crores. However, these are matters which can be₹looked into at the stage of reassessment. Based on the materialavailable with the respondents, we cannot say that they either had noreason to believe or that their reasons to believe were based on somenon-extent material or extraneous and irrelevant material. 16.Mr Panandiker's contentions are in a realm of merits which canalways be gone into at the stage of actual reassessment. However, based 1 1996 (4) SCC 127 on his contentions, no case is made out to interfere with the impugnedorders or impugned notices seeking to reassess the Petitioner's income. 17.For the above reasons, we dismiss this Petition. 18. However, there shall be no order for costs. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. Digitally signed by NITI K HALDANKAR Date: 2022.10.14 10:03:13 +05'30' NITI K HALDANKAR M. S. SONAK, J.