GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *M/s. RKR.Gold P. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 2 Ors.* W.P. No. 29867 of 2019 Dated: 29.09.2022 *Honourable Dr. Justice ANITA SUMANTH* dismissed of the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Income Tax – Reassessment – S. 143, 147, 148”,* and further observed and held as follows:

[10/29, 12:41] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*M/s. RKR.Gold P. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 2 Ors.*
W.P. No. 29867 of 2019
Dated: 29.09.2022

*Honourable Dr. Justice ANITA SUMANTH* dismissed of the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Income Tax – Reassessment – S. 143, 147, 148”,* and further observed and held as follows:

i) The return submitted by the Petitioner was taken up for scrutiny and Notice u/S. 143(2) was issued. Inter alia, the assessing authority calls for the attendance of the petitioner to his office to finalise the assessment. Parallelly and separately, a notice had been issued by the Income Tax Officer in the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department (ITO(I&CI)).

ii) The Petitioner had furnished bank statements of ICICI and others before the ITO(I&CI), but had not furnished the ICICI bank statement before the assessing officer. Based on the same, order of assessment was passed.

iii) Subsequently, beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Notice u/S. 148 (Reassessment) was issued to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Department to satisfy the additional condition set out under the proviso to Section 147 to the effect that the petitioner had made an incomplete and untrue disclosure of relevant facts at the initial stage.

iv) The Petitioner during the original assessment did not reveal the existence of the bank account at ICICI. In this regard, mere reference to the bank account in the communication addressed to the ITO (ICI) will be of no aid to the petitioner.

v) The criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the petitioner from the requirement of making a ‘full and true disclosure’ before the assessing officer in assessment. The apparent difference in the communications addressed to the assessing authority on the one hand and the ITO (ICI) on the other, would itself illustrate the difference in the disclosures made before the two authorities.

vi) In the absence of a full and true disclosure at the first instance, the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority beyond the period of four years is not barred by limitation, and cannot be faulted.
[10/29, 12:41] Sekarreporter 1: ..