TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under Section 143(1). No assessment was carried out under Section 143(3). 2. The reasons on the basis of which the assessments are sought to be reopened are these: 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, it was seen that the assessee had been receiving rent from leasing its property since many years. Till A.Y. 2007-08, the rental income was declared by the assessee under the head of business income. From A.Y. 2008-09 the rental income was declared by the assessee as income from house property. Since the assessee had accepted from A.Y. 2008-09 that the rental income is taxable under the head of income from house property, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the same view needs to be taken for A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everal communications, including by a notice under Section 143(1), dated 6 June 2011 and by an order dated 23 August 2011 to explain as to how the facts for the period prior to A.Y. 2007-08 were materially different from the period thereafter. Thereafter, five hearings took place before the Assessing Officer in spite of which the assessee failed to furnish a reply to the query. No clarification was issued to the Assessing Officer setting out facts on the basis of which it could be concluded that the circumstances pertaining to A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 were different from those of A.Y. 2008-09; (ii) Even the objections which have been filed by the assessee to the notice under Section 148 on 14 August 2012 do not contain any statement of mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that the income derived by the assessee from the business centre constituted income from business. When the matter was carried in appeal before this Court, the Division Bench by an order dated 12 January 2012 observed that the ITAT had recorded a finding of fact that the assessee during the course of the year had been granting the use of the facility on a weekly basis and the user was required to pay to the business centre, subscription and service charges on a weekly basis. Moreover, the Tribunal recorded a finding that even in the earlier years the Assessing Officer had passed an order to the effect that the income derived by the assessee was business income. Consequently, for A.Y. 2005-06, the income from the property in question was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-07 and 2007-08 were different from those of A.Y. 2008-09 and subsequent years was a circumstance which led the Assessing Officer to believe that the rental income has been wrongly assessed under the head of income from business rather than as income from house property. The Assessing Officer has duly taken into consideration the fact that for A.Y. 2005-06 this Court by its order dated 12 January 2012 had upheld the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that the assessee had followed the judgment of this Court for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, as the Assessing Officer noted, the returns for those two years were filed on 29 November 2006 and 27 October 2007 whereas the decision of this Cou....