Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The assessment reopened in the case of the petitioner as there was huge difference between data reflected in Form 26AS and assessee's statement. Form 26AS is constantly updated from time to time. The figures reflected in Form 26AS may increase or decrease based on TDS statements filed by the deductors. In Form 26AS, rate of TDS deducted and total payments made to the deductee are vital. Although the amount of TDS credited in assessee's account may vary according to the TDS statements filed by the deductor, the amount of gross receipts received/receivable by the assessee during the relevant financial year is available with the assessee as it follows the mercantile system of accounting.

7. The assessee had credited in his P & L account income of Rs.377,87,93,055/- only out of the total receipts of Rs.419,47,44,777/-. Thus, there is a huge difference in assessee's submission before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment and the figures reflected in form 26AS. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner did not submit the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ correct figures before the Assessing Officer. The facts came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, when petitioner filed the rectification application and form 26AS was downloaded by the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the materials before the Assessing Officer and the reopening of the assessment is in order. As the assessee has not made full and true disclosure during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the reassessment can be initiated after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessment is reopened in the case of the petitioner for this assessment year, after getting the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem as per the relevant provisions.

8. The respondents relied in comparison with Form 26AS and the rectification application filed by the petitioner on 20.07.2011, found that there is a huge mismatch in receipts appearing in 26AS vis-a-vis receipts credited in P & L Account. Thus, the Assessing Officer had tangible material to reopen the income tax assessment and the same was legally done as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act by issuing a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

09. It is seen from the Form 26AS downloaded that assessee was in receipt of income of Rs.419,47,44,777/-, whereas the total amount credited in P & L account is Rs.387,30,50,376/-. In this context, the Assessing officer relied on the breakup details. In view of large discrepancy and mismatch, the Assessing officer has reason to believe that income of Rs.41,59,51,722/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all and true material facts necessary for assessment. In fact, the rectification application dated 20.07.2011, submitted by the assessee company was also considered by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer verified the informations provided in the rectification application and found that very Form 26AS that was downloaded in view of assessee's application for the rectification, it was found that there was huge mismatch in receipts appearing in 26AS vis-a-vis receipts credited in P & L Account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ income of the assessee as escaped assessment and decided to reopen the assessment. This apart, the Assessing officer relied on the MB Shah Commission, set up by the Government of India to enquire into the cases of illegal mining in the State of Odisha. The petitioner/assessee was a raising contractor, employed by one KJS Ahulwalia, who was a lessee found in the Shah Commission report. For all these reasons, the Assessing officer has reason to believe for reopening of assessment.