The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on an audit objection were invalid. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction by relying on the audit objection, which was contrary to the facts and evidence on record, especially when the department had previously accepted and granted depreciation on the goodwill claimed by the assessee for earlier years. The Court emphasized that even though an audit objection can be considered as "information" for reopening an assessment u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot merely reiterate the audit objection while ignoring the facts of the case and the assessee's reply filed u/s 148A(b).
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on an audit objection were invalid. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction by relying on the audit objection, which was contrary to the facts and evidence on record, especially when the department had previously accepted and granted depreciation on the goodwill claimed by the assessee for earlier years. The Court emphasized that even though an audit objection can be considered as "information" for reopening an assessment u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot merely reiterate the audit objection while ignoring the facts of the case and the assessee's reply filed u/s 148A(b).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
