TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al"), disposing of 13 Income-tax appeals, namely, I. T. A. Nos. 882-885 of 2006, I.T.A. Nos. 1111-1113 of 2006, I. T. A. Nos. 886-889 of 2006 and I. T. A. Nos. 1114-1115 of 2006. All these appeals pertain to different assessment years starting from 1999-2000 to 2002-03. Out of the 13 appeals before the Tribunal, four appeals each were filed by the assessees, namely, M/s. Baldwin Boys High School and M/s. Baldwin Girls High School and five appeals were filed by the Revenue, namely, I. T. A. Nos. 1111-1115 of 2006. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessees in part and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. Hence, the Revenue has filed the instant thirteen appeals. 2. The assessees are the trust, which run educational insti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 148 of the Act, in the present cases, were recorded after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the whole proceedings are bad in law ?" 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that if the aforementioned substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees then we need not address the other questions and, hence, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this question and with their assistance gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below and so also the original records placed for our consideration. 5. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the assessees, at the outset....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K. V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, invited our attention to the original records and submitted that a draft notice under section 148 of the Act was prepared by the Assessing Officer on January 20, 2004, itself, which shows that the Assessing Officer had recorded the reasons even before issuing the notice. He submitted that the Assessing Officer struck off the typed date of the reasons since it was wrongly typed as February 4, 2004, instead of January 30, 2004. Therefore, he submitted that it cannot be inferred that the reasons were not recorded before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He placed the original record before us for our perusal in support of his contention.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t out was February 4, 2004, and that it was changed to January 30, 2004, as the date of reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148 of the Act. Thus, the record was set right by showing that the date of the notice and the date on which the reasons were recorded was the same. Why and how the date February 4, 2004, is appearing on the original reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148 of the Act is not explained by the Assessing Officer. Neither in the order of the Assessing Officer nor in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) an attempt was made to explain striking off the original date and writing the date January 30, 2004, by hand. It was possible for the Assessing Officer to place an affidavit of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before us containing identical correction by hand with no signature on the correction, it is apparent that the rea sons were not recorded at the time of issue of notice. The Department was, therefore, asked to make submission on this issue, with reference to the order of the Tribunal in H. M. Constructions v. Asst. CIT, vide order dated October 28, 2005, in I. T. A. Nos. 1666 and 1650/ Bang/2004, I. T. A. No. 338/Bang/2005 (pages 196 to 222 of the paper book). The Tribunal considered the facts that the assumption of juris diction for reopening of assessment is based on a notice, which itself hinged firmly on the reasons recorded. The Tribunal in its decision dated October 28, 2005, drew its conclusion from the decision of the Rajasthan Hig....