TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his own 'satisfaction' as he had neither made specific enquiries nor gathered evidence in the matter and had merely relied on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the department overlooking the fact that Investigation Wing is also an arm of the department conducting enquiries. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) has erred in holding that the DCIT. Circle 31(1) did not have valid jurisdiction over the appellant for issue of notice u/s 148 and only ITO, Ward 31(1) could have issued such notice overlooking the fact that DCIT, Cir.31(1) had concurrent jurisdiction over the areas of all the ITOs of Range 31 as per the jurisdiction order F.No.Jt. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment were conveyed to the assessee on 09.10.2009, i.e., beyond six years from the end of the assessment year under consideration (assessment year 2002-03) i.e., 31.3.2003. It has been contended that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of "Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO", vide order dated 14.01.2011 (copy placed on record) in I.T.A. No.4806/Del./10, has held that if reasons for the reopening are not supplied to the assessee before the expiry of six years, the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not valid. It has been contended that in keeping with the ratio of "Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO" (supra), since the reasons for the reopening of the completed assessment in the present case were conveyed to the assessee after the expiry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able and it be not entertained. 3. We have heard the parties on this issue. In "Balwant Rai Wadhwa vs. ITO" (supra), while holding that if the reasons for reopening are not served on the assessee within six years from the end of the concerned assessment year, the reopening is void, the Tribunal placed reliance on "Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co." (supra), wherein it was held that a notice u/s 148 of the Act is to be served within six years and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer would go hand in hand with such notice; and that if the reasons are not supplied to the assessee within the period of six years from the end of the concerned assessment year, it would be construed that the assessment had not been validly reopened. Whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t if the reasons are supplied to the assessee beyond a period of six year from the end of the concerned assessment year, the reopening of the completed assessment is void. The department has remained unable to walk out of the said ratio, which holds good squarely in the present case also. Obviously, the Assessing Officer cannot be allowed time ad infinitum to reopen a completed assessment. Such reopening, even as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act can be brought about within six years from the end of the assessment year concerned, which has been taken to be a reasonable period of time for the purpose. Notwithstanding the fact that in the present case, the reasons were supplied to the assessee about three months period to the compl....