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

.... 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 the return filed on October 1, 2010, the conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me 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 besides the reassessment notice is also unsustainable becau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 can weigh with the Revenue for validly reopening any concluded ....