2011 (3) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 1,44,943. The case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.1,57,650. Thereafter, by the impugned notice, the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 has been reopened. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the notice under section 148 of the Act.   3. In response to the petition, the respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply annexing therewith a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The assessee has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent.   4. Ms. Bhoomi Thakore, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, invited attention to the reasons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment proceedings.   7. In the present case, the earlier assessment had been framed under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1992-93 and notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on May 28, 2001, in relation to the said assessment year, which is clearly after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the circumstances, the proviso to section 147 of the Act would clearly be attracted. The Assessing Officer can, therefore, assume valid jurisdiction only if he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment ; and that such escapement is by reason of failure on the part of the petitioner to (i)file a return under section 139 or in response ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officer to reopen the assessment in respect of the very same items. Reliance placed by the respondent upon the observation of the Tribunal that if the Assessing Officer did not believe the purchases to be genuine, addition could have been made only in the course of regular assessment proceedings and not in the block assessment proceedings is also misconceived, inasmuch as in the present case, the Tribunal has on the merits found that the addition made on account of bogus purchases was not justified. Thus, in so far as the issue in respect of which the assessment is sought to be reopened is concerned the same has become final by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer, under the guise of reopening of assessment, therefore....