2014 (1) TMI 1494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case are that the appellant, a statutory corporation, claimed the benefit of Section 10(29) contending that its income was exempted from taxation as it carried on warehousing and storage activity. The original assessment for AY 1995-96 was made on 22.01.1998. The assessee's contentions were accepted in respect of a portion of its income which was held to be exempted under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At that time the prevailing law had been declared by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. UP State Warehousing Corporation, (1991) 187 ITR 54. The eligibility of corporations and companies carrying on warehousing activities to claim benefit of Section 10(29) was finally pronounced by the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corpor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration limiting its discussion only on the aspect as to whether the reason given by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the reassessment was the aspect considered earlier in the original assessment proceedings and it would be a case of mere change of opinion or this aspect was not considered at all and, therefore, provided proper ground for reopening the assessment. 34. We are remitting the case back for this limited purpose for obvious reason that in so far as other grounds raised by the assessee for challenging the validity of notice under Section 147/ 148 of the Act are concerned, we have concurred with the views expressed by the ITAT ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Hon'ble Supreme Court. With the Hon'ble Supreme Courts decision it was incumbent on AO to examine whether the claim allowed by him u/s 10(29) during the original assessment proceedings was in conformity with the same. We are unable to accept the proposition advanced by the learned counsel that AO had already exercised his opinion in respect of the matter which is subsequently decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was going to hold in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (supra). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kartikeya International (supra), has held that subsequent Supreme Court judgment constitutes law of the land and accordingly the AO's reassessment with satisfaction that exemption u/s 10(29) has been granted to as....