TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law in dismissing the Ground no.l agitating the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the IT. Act as bad in law and void abinitio. 1.1 ] Equally the Id. CIT(A) was completely in error on facts and in law in holding contrary to the contention and submission of the Appellant that the reopening of the completed assessment was bad in law on account of change of opinion and on the basis of audit objection. 1.2 ] The Id. CIT(A) completely failed to appreciate the facts as explained that the Id. AO lacked the jurisdiction in absence of his own satisfaction based on his own reason to believe that there was an escapement of income within the provisions of sec.147 of the IT. Act. 1.3 ] In view of facts and circumstances and submissions made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and submissions made before the lower authorities, ought to have accepted that the impugned addition made of Rs. 11,80,184/- by the Id. AO without appreciating facts on records is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. 3.2 ] Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) on this ground may kindly be set aside and the appeal of the Appellant kindly be allowed. 4] The Id. CIT(A) has further erred in not allowing without prejudice, set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from other sources." 3. The assessee company manufactures ceramic tiles. It filed return on 16-12-2006 stating loss of Rs. 39,92,991/-. The same was processed. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. He completed a regular assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed a consequential order dated 21-03-2011 re-computing assessee's income to Rs. 2,73,97,688/-. 5. This case file reveals that the Assessing Officer again formed an opinion on reasons to believe that assessee's taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. He issued section 148 notice dated 15-03-2011. The assessee filed return on 20-04-2011 and sought for reopening reasons. The Assessing Officer furnished the same on 11-10-2011 reading as under:- "The reasons for reopening were as under: In this case the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on 30.12.2008 resulted into a total income of Rs. 24,76,59,042/-. P/L a/c was charged with an amount of Rs. 8,18,923/- being net of prior period expenses, instead of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent assailed correctness of prior period expenditure disallowance. The CIT(A) has partly accepted second and third substantive ground in accepting Rs. 38.53 lacs out of Rs. 157.07 lacs to be treated as business income thereby directing the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee depreciation relief as per special bench decision in DCIT vs. Times Guarantee Ltd. (2010) 131 TTJ 257 (Mum) propounding a set off principles on the issue. He has rejected assessee's all other contentions. 8. Learned authorized representative takes us to Assessing Officer's order in reassessment framed on 11-11-2012 in question. Its last page contains remarks 'RAP requested to settle the objections'. She cites case law of RAAJ RATNA METAL INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT SPECIAL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer with respect to subjective satisfaction for initiation of the reassessment proceedings, the impugned reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside." 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated herein, above, present petition succeeds on the aforesaid ground alone, i.e. the assessment was reopened solely on the ground of audit objections raised by the audit party. Consequently, the impugned reassessment proceedings are hereby QUASHED and set aside. Further, it is made clear that we have expressed no opinion with respect to the grounds of objections raised and the impugned reassessment proceedings quashed and set as....