TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent when the appeal was called out for hearing, nor any adjournment application stands received. In fact, it was observed by the Bench that no legal authority or power of attorney in favour of any counsel has been filed, even as the appeal was filed on 27.04.2012, i.e., nearly two years ago. Under the circumstances, it was considered only proper to proceed to decide this appeal after hearing the party before us. 3. The principal issue arising in this appeal is the maintainability or otherwise in law the annulling of the reassessment by the ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order by upholding the assessee's challenge to the reopening of the assessment u/s.148. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee's return of income for the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB) was delivered on 19.11.2008, while the notice u/s.148 was issued in the instant case on 18.03.2010, i.e., subsequent thereto. The addition on account of deemed dividend as made in the instant case was not tenable in view of the position of law as explained by the tribunal in the said case. Accordingly, the reopening was held by him as bad in law, and the assessment, consequently, as bad in law. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard the party before us, and perused the material on record as well as the relevant case law. In our view, the assessee deserves to succeed, though for a reason different from that which prevailed with the ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttled that a decision by the hon'ble high court or the apex court clarifies the law as it always stood, i.e., operates retrospectively. The decision by a high court, as explained by the apex court in ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), would, therefore, render a decision inconsistent therewith as liable for rectification, even where rendered subsequently. As such, it can be on the basis of the said decision, settling the law in the matter, at least in-so-far as the province of Maharashtra is concerned, said that the view entertained by the A.O. is without any basis in law, so that there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction in the first place. Accordingly, the reopening of the assessment on that ground p....