TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the first proviso to Section 147 is not applicable. 3. The petitioner had filed its return for the assessment year 2006-07 on 19th October, 2006 and the return was selected for scrutiny. Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 25th August, 2008. 4. The petitioner had claimed and were allowed deduction under Section 10B of the Act amounting to Rs.6,72,28,255/- on the ground that they were 100% export oriented unit and had fulfilled the conditions of Section 10B. This is an undisputed position. 5. The "reasons to believe" to justify reopening recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act read as under:- "The assessment of M/s Replika Press (P) Ltd. for the A.Y. 2006-07 was completed after s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the Calcutta High Court in Additional CIT WB-III, Calcutta Vs. A Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 718 (Calcutta). A portion of the said judgment has also been quoted. 7. A bare perusal of the original assessment order dated 25th August, 2008 would indicate that there was no doubt or dispute about the business activity undertaken i.e. the petitioner was a printer of text books. The assessment order itself records that business of the assessee was to print and export books which used to be delivered as per instructions of the overseas importer to parties situated outside India as well as in India (i.e. constructive exports). The petitioner had shown receipts in convertible foreign exchange from export/transmission of customi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order itself. It is also recorded that these books were printed and supplied to different parties as per the instructions of the overseas importer. Thus, it is incorrect and wrong that any fresh or new factual information came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer after passing of the first assessment order dated 25th August, 2008. No new fact came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, which made him believe that the petitioner was carrying on another activity and was not printing books. The audit objections in the present case reflects and indicates that the auditors were of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had erred in accepting the legal position that printing of book amounts to manufacture or production. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "information" and nature, type or character of information. No doubt, the scope and ambit of the amended reassessment provisions is wider, but what is relevant and important is that cases of "change of opinion" are not covered or protected under the re-enacted reopening provisions. In this connection, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision of the Full Bench in Usha International Ltd. (supra):- "15. Thus where an Assessing Officer incorrectly or erroneously applies law or comes to a wrong conclusion and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, resort to Section 263 of the Act is available and should be resorted to. But initiation of reassessment proceedings will be invalid on the ground of change ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de reference to New Light Trading Co. Vs. CIT (supra) and P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd.(supra). 13. We have also examined the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in A. Mukherjee and Company Private Limited (supra). The said judgment does not support the Revenue and the Assessing Officer in the „reasons to believe‟ has quoted one sentence, which in fact is a misquote and does not state or convey what the Assessing Officer has understood. The full paragraph in A. Mukherjee and Company Private Limited (supra) reads:- "In order that a publisher of books should be a manufacturer of books it is wholly unnecessary for him either to be an owner of a printing press or to be a book-binder himself. A paper is not a book, though it is printed o....