TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-assessee has prayed for issuance of writ or order to quash and setaside the impugned Notice dated 31st March 2016, by which in exercise of power under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, "the I.T Act"], the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2009-2010 on the ground that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment during the year under consideration. 3. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application are as under : 3.1 That, the petitioner-assessee filed return of income for A.Y 2009-2010. That thereafter, a notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an of Rs. 488.10 million. The assessee submitted that in order to expand the business in USA, the company had established a step down subsidiary in USA. Hence, interest and other finance charges incurred by the company had been claimed as business expenditure. As the expenditure was incurred to establish a subsidiary in USA, therefore, the expenditure was covered under Section 35D [1](ii) of the I.T Act and only 1/5th of the expenditure ie., Rs. 47,23,722/- was required to be allowed. I have reason to believe within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act that income to the extent of Rs. 1,88,94,890/- has escaped the assessment." 3.3 On receipt of the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2009-2010, the petitioner-assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has materially erred in assuming the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2009-2010, and that too beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years, and therefore, unless and until the conditions precedent for reopening assessment beyond the period of four years, as mentioned in proviso to Section 147 of the Act are satisfied, the Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment beyond the period of four years. It is submitted by learned ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,890/- had escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer is justified in reopening the assessment. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2009-2010 beyond the period of four years. Therefore, unless and until the condition precedent to reopen the assessment beyond the period of four years as mentioned in proviso to Section 147 of the I.T Act are satisfied, the Assessing Officer is not justified in initiating the re-assessment proceedings. As per the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, i....