Invalid notice for reopening assessment quashed due to lack of independent belief by Assessing Officer.

The court held that the notice for reopening the assessment was invalid as it was issued under the audit party's directives without the Assessing Officer's independent belief. The court quashed the notice and stated that the AO's actions were impermissible under the law, ultimately disposing of the petition accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice for reopening the assessment.
2. Non-deduction of TDS under section 194-A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Excess claim of depreciation.
4. Interest earned from associated concern not offered to tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the notice for reopening the assessment:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 28.03.2014 issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011, which was previously completed after scrutiny. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued under the directives of the audit party and not based on the AO's independent belief. The court emphasized that the AO must exercise quasi-judicial functions independently and not be influenced by any external agency, including the audit party. The court referred to the case of Adani Exports v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, where it was held that reopening based solely on audit party directives is impermissible. The court concluded that the AO's reopening notice was invalid as it was issued under the audit party's directives without the AO's independent belief.

2. Non-deduction of TDS under section 194-A of the Income Tax Act:
The AO noted that no TDS was made under section 194A from interest payments made to IFCI Ltd., except for a payment made under section 194J for professional services. The AO concluded that the remaining interest expense of Rs. 13,82,25,530 should be disallowed under section 40a(ia) of the Act. However, the court found that the AO initially did not agree with the audit party's objection regarding this issue and only changed his stance after being directed by the audit party, indicating a lack of independent belief.

3. Excess claim of depreciation:
The AO identified an excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 44,857 due to a discrepancy between the depreciation claimed in the statement of total income and the final accounts. The AO initially suggested rectifying this mistake under section 154 of the Act but later included it as a ground for reopening the assessment under the audit party's directive. The court noted that the AO's initial belief was to rectify the error through section 154, and the subsequent inclusion in the reopening notice was influenced by the audit party, lacking independent judgment.

4. Interest earned from associated concern not offered to tax:
The AO observed that the petitioner did not offer the entire interest income of Rs. 1,52,44,044 to tax, resulting in an underassessment of Rs. 1,38,60,497. The AO initially disagreed with the audit party's objection on this issue but later included it in the reopening notice under the audit party's directive. The court found that the AO's change in stance was due to the audit party's influence, indicating a lack of independent belief.

Conclusion:
The court held that the reopening notice was invalid as it was issued under the audit party's directives without the AO's independent belief. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2014, stating that the AO's actions were not permissible under the law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---