2012 (12) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regularly assessed to tax. For the assessment year 1997-98, the petitioner filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.4.30 lakhs (rounded off). Such return was taken in scrutiny for which the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 1.7.1998. Scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 5.1.2000. 3. It is this scrutiny assessment that the respondent Assessing Officer desired to reopen for which the impugned notice dated 24.9.2002 came to be issued. The assessee was granted 30 days time for filing return in response to such notice. 4. Having received such notice, the petitioner under its communication dated 31.12.2002, demanded the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. reported in (2003) 261 ITR 275. 7. Since such objections were not disposed of for some time, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the very notice for reopening the assessment. Along with reply that the respondent filed in this petition, respondent produced order dated 24.12.2003 by which he had rejected the petitioner's objections to the reopening. From the sequence of events noted above, it clearly emerges that the assessment, which was previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In that view of the matter, counsel for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Chemicals Co. Ltd.(supra), Counsel contended that MODVAT Credit lying with the Department cannot be treated as income of the assessee. 11. Counsel for the Revenue opposed the objection contending that proper reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer. Objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with and disposed of. At this stage, sufficiency of reasons for reopening cannot be gone into. 12. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties, we may remind ourselves that in the present case, reopening is sought to be done beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In that view of the matter, additional requirement flowing from the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, namely, that the income chargeable....