TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner is M/s. Ester Industries Ltd. The writ petition was directed against the notice issued on 6th March, 2009 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The prayer was to quash the notice as also the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 23rd September, 2011, pursuant to the notice, rejecting the objections of the petitioner to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The notice under Section 148 had been earlier challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No. 13093/2009. Accepting the plea of the petitioner, this Court passed an order quashing the re-assessment order which has been passed by the respondent on 11th September, 2009 and directing the respondent to first decide the question whether he had juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2011, rejected all the contentions of the petitioner. It was this order of the respondent that was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP(C) No. 7482/2011, which was the third challenge by the petitioner to the re-assessment proceedings. 5. When the above writ petition was taken up for hearing by this Court on 8th November, 2012, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that with regard to three out of four grounds on the basis of which the notice under Section 148 was issued, he could not defend the notice. Thus, the only issue which survived was the ground regarding the deferred tax liability on the basis of retrospective amendment made to Section 115 JB by the Finance Act, 2008. The amendment had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t such a demand was made by the petitioner before the successor-officer". In this view of the mater, the contention based on Section 129 was also rejected. 8. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner sought to challenge the vires of the amendment made to Section 115JB of the Act by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. This Court dealt with this challenge in paragraphs No. 7 to 9 of the impugned order. In paragraph 8, it was noted that in the order passed by this Court on 18th January, 2011, the petitioner had given up the challenge to the vires of the retrospective amendment. Even so, this Court proceeded to examine the challenge and dealt with the authorities cited by the counsel for the petitioner and found that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... noted in the impugned judgment and no decision has been rendered vis-a-vis the contention. The contention is inaccurate as it has been dealt with in paragraph 6 of our order where it has been specifically noticed that in respect of the three issues, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue did not seriously dispute the contention. The sequitur is that the reopening cannot be sustained on these three grounds. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the contention has not been dealt with in the impugned order. 13. It is then alleged in the Review Petition that so far as the issue regarding the constitutionality of the retrospective amendment to Section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 is concerned, though the plea was reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication is permissible, it does not mean that no action can be taken for re-opening the assessment because the powers under Section 147 and Section 154 are not mutually exclusive and there could be some overlapping and so long as the conditions for the applicability of either of these sections are satisfied, the action taken there under has to be validated and "it is no answer to say that action should be taken under another Section." Thus, the contention of the petitioner has been dealt with. The petitioner does not appear to have properly understood and appreciated the purport of our observations in paragraph 9. It is this very misconception or misunderstanding that seems to run through paragraph 7 of the Review Petition. It appears that ....