2017 (5) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocates For the Respondent : Ruchir Bhatia and Puneet Rai, Advocates JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner/assessee in these proceedings under articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenges a reassessment notice under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") proposing to reopen the completed assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11. 2. In th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ight years. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 8,76,43,790 has escaped assessment for assessment year 2010-11." 3. The petitioner contends that "reasons to believe" cannot stand the test of principles enunciated by this court as those governing valid reopening of assessment by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). It is submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied further only for eight years. Since the eight years period ended before the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee could not have claimed the benefit at all. Under these circumstances, counsel for the Revenue submits that the reassessment notice is valid and cannot be impeached. 5. The Kelvinator's case (supra) is as conclusive as any other precedent can be as to the considerations that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s India Private Limited's case (supra), the court is of the opinion that the view taken is sound and an added factor inhibited the Revenue from reopening the assessment. The benefit of carrying forward the depreciation was, in one sense, limited by the pre-existing ruling that can be done for eight years. All that amendment did with effect from April 1, 2002 was to remove the cap which meant t....