Point of Law: Reopening of assessment is “sufficient reason” to believe that there is escapement of income and the “sufficiency” of the reasons cannot be gone into by the High Court in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent contained in its impugned order bearing Proceedings No.AABCT6759R/2008-09, dated 23.02.2016, and to quash the same, and to consequently forbear the respondents or any of their subordinates, agents or any other person claiming under the respondents, from in any manner re-assessing the petitioner's income for the assessment year 2008-09 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.)

1. The writ on hand is filed, challenging the proceedings dated 23.02.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against the initiation of action under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act with reference to the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. The petitioner is a Company, registered under Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the business of iron ore mining services, transportation and handling of iron ore and limestone, quarrying of blue metals boulders and sale of blue metals. The petitioner company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008, declaring a total income of Rs.117,55,95,560/- and the said return was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) was issued from the respondents. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2009. In the said intimation notice, it was stated that income tax computed at higher rate against the actual rate and actual rate, and credit for tax deducted at source was given only to the extent of Rs.8,51,06,508/- as against the actual TDS of Rs.9,04,19,747/-, which was claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner on 05.04.2010, had filed a rectification application before the 2nd respondent to rectify the same. The 2nd respondent passed an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act on 28.12.2010 and a revised demand was issued to the petitioner, reducing the total demand to the tune of Rs.38,05,14,782/-, Subsequently, the Department passed an order under Section 143(3), wherein again TDS was given only to the extent of Rs.8,51,06,508/-. On 20.07.2011, the petitioner filed another rectification petition before the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) to rectify the order passed under Section 154 for Assessment Year 2008-09, it was submitted by the petitioner that since the TDS amount of Rs.55,65,195/- had not been taken into account, interest levied under Section 234B would be reduced and hence, no tax was payable to the petitioner.

3. The respondent Department on 20.02.2015, issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income tax Act, to reopen the petitioner's income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09. It is contended that the said notice was issued beyond four years and after the end of relevant Assessment Year. On 21.04.2015, the petitioner wrote a letter to the DCIT, seeking the reason for reopening of the impugned Assessment Year. On 12.10.2015, the reasons were furnished by the DCIT for reopening. The petitioner has stated that he has disclosed fully and truly all the material particulars during the original Assessment proceedings. Thus, the petitioner on 23.11.2015, filed a detailed written submission, objecting to the reopening of its assessment under Section 147. However, the DCIT passed the impugned order on 23.02.2016, rejecting the explanations and objections given by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that order, considering the objections of the petitioner, is not a final order and it is just one stage in the adjudication process and the writ petition is pre-mature as the Department is yet to pass the Assessment order and therefore, the petitioner has a right