TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the records during the course of the original assessment proceedings, without appreciating that the Assessee's case is fully covered under the provisions of section 147 r.w. Explanation 2(c)(iii)?" 2. As is apparent from the question framed, the issue pertains to validity of a notice of reopening under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The assessment year in question is 2001-02. The assessment of the respondent-assessee for the said assessment year was taken in scrutiny. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 30.03.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2006. Assessing Officer had recorded the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of its EOU. At the same time, by indulging into this exercise the assessee has reduced its taxable profit to the extent as discussed above.......... In view of these facts, then the income to the extent as discussed above has escaped assessment." 3. The assessee contested the validity of the notice on the ground that the claim of the assessee's benefit under section 10B of the Act was examined thoroughly by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny assessment. Assessing Officer, however, ignored such plea and proceeded to pass a fresh order of assessment in the reopened proceedings. The issue was carried in appeal by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer. Upon the department a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Schedule 6 of the Companies Act showing separately for EOU and other unit was already furnished. The Assessee, therefore, contended, as per the Tribunal, that only after examining such detailed reply, the Assessing Officer did not make any disallowance though in the assessment order no detailed discussion was made. 4. It was, in this context, that the Tribunal referred to and relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 and provided to dismiss the revenue's appeal in following terms: "11. The fact that in the body of original assessment order the A.O. did not give any specific finding accepting the claim of the assessee makes no difference if the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same. However, in our opinion, this would not be of any consequence once the Assessing Officer examined the claim, called for details and raised queries which the assessee replied at length. The mere fact that the Assessing Officer did not give reasons for not disturbing the claim made by the Assessee in the final order of assessment would not authorize the Assessing Officer to reopen the same issue even within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. This is precisely what a Division Bench of this Court in case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2013] 350 ITR 266 (Guj) has held in such decision. It was observed as under: "27. From t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature of assessment proceedings involving large number of assessees concerning multiple questions of claims, deductions and exemptions, which assessments have to be completed in a time frame. To protect the interest of the revenue, therefore, such special provisions are made under section 147 of the Act. However, it must be appreciated that an assessment previously framed after scrutiny when reopened, results into considerable hardship to the assessee. The assessment gets reopened not only qua those grounds which are recorded in the reasons, but also with respect to entire original assessment, of course at the hands of the revenue. This obviously would lead to considerable hardship and uncertainty. It is precisely for this reason that even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a claim, but chooses not to give any reasons for such a course of action that he adopts, it can hardly be stated that he did not form an opinion on such a claim. It is not unknown that assessments of larger corporations in the modern day, involve large number of complex claims, voluminous material, numerous exemptions and deductions. If the Assessing Officer is burdened with the responsibility of giving reasons for several claims so made and accepted by him, it would even otherwise cast an unreasonable expectation which within the short frame of time available under law would be too much to expect him to carry. Irrespective of this, in a given case, if the Assessing Officer on his own for reasons best known to him, chooses not to assign r....