TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation constituted under the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987 (NDDB Act). Earlier, in view of the provisions of section 44 of the NDDB Act, the petitioner was exempted from the application of the Income Tax Act. However, vide section 162 of the Finance Act, 2002, section 44 of the NDDB Act, came to be omitted with effect from 1.4.2003. The petitioner Board, therefore, became a taxable entity for and from assessment year 2003-2004. The petitioner filed return of income on 15.11.2003 declaring taxable income of Rs.81,03,26,249/- for the assessment year 2003-2004. Initially, return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and refund arising thereon of Rs.15,26,18,119/- came to be issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act, is invalid. It was submitted that the notice in the present case has been issued on 25.03.2010 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, hence, the re-opening is clearly beyond a period of four years for the end of the relevant assessment year. It was submitted that, in case, where earlier an assessment has been framed under section 143(3) of the Act, then for the purpose of re-opening of assessment after the expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer is required to record two fold satisfaction. Firstly, that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and secondly, that such escapement is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, it was submitted that in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is invalid and as such the impugned notice under 148 is required to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel has also made submissions on the merits of the first ground on which the assessment is sought to be reopened, however, considering the view that the Court is inclined to take in the matter, it is not necessary to refer the said contentions in detail. Resisting the petition, Mr. K.M. Parikh learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in light of the reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intervention by this Court. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the impugned notice dated 25.3.2010 under section 148 of the Act whereby assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 is sought to be reopened has been issued after the expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the circumstances, for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act the Assessing Officer is required to record two-fold satisfaction. Firstly, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and secondly, that such escapement is by reason of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. A perusal of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s claim requires to be restricted to Rs.12,42,38,986/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view that in the light of the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2008, the petitioner has been allowed excessive depreciation. Thus, insofar as the first ground is concerned, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is based upon the material placed on record by the petitioner. The second ground which was subject matter of appeal is based upon a subsequent amendment brought in by the legislature. However, in either case, there is nothing whatsoever in the reasons recorded to indicate that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year....