TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners for reopening the assessments for the assessment year 1998-99 and the assessment year 1999-2000. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are more or less similar, for the sake of convenience in this judgment, we set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2005. The decision in Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2005 will apply to Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2005 as well. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the return filed by the petitioner was assessed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act and an assessment order was passed accordingly by the Assessing Officer on January 23, 2001. By the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one of its units, the petitioner used to import Hexapeptide from other countries. While transferring the indigenously manufactured Hexapeptide from one unit to another unit since the assessment year 1994-1995, the petitioner has been taking the last landed cost of the imported goods as the fair market value of the Hexapeptide manufactured by them. According to the petitioner, at the relevant time, Hexapeptide was not manufactured by any one in India and therefore they had taken the fair market value on the basis of the landed cost of the imported goods. For the assessment year 1994-1995, the Assessing Officer objected to the said valuation and on explanation given by the petitioner, the said valuation was accepted. Thereafter in every subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT (No. 1) [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) Shri Inamdar submitted that it is not open to the Assessing Officer to supplement the reasons by filing an affidavit. He further submitted in the present case the Assessing Officer, by his order dated December 7, 2005, as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition, has sought to supplement reasons which is not permissible in law. Shri Inamdar submitted that in the present case the Revenue has not made out case for reopening the assessment beyond four years. As regards the director's report dated March 31, 1993, Shri Inamdar submitted that the said report was in fact submitted by the assessee during the relevant assessment proceedings and therefore, the statement contained in the said report ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner in respect of the goods manufactured by them was not just and proper. He submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment can be supplemented by an order while dealing with the objections raised by the assessee. He submitted that on the basis of the directors' report dated March 31, 1993, as well as the submission made by the assessee, during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03, it was evident that the transfer price fixed by the assessee for the relevant years was incorrect and therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the provisions of section 148 for reopening the assessment. Shri Chopra further submitted that the very fact that the transfer price has remained constant since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that ground alone. While rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer has recorded that on sale of the final product, the assessee had incurred loss. From the annexures to the petition, it is seen that, in fact, on sale of the final product the assessee has made substantial profits. Thus, even the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer against the petitioner appears to be based on total misconstruction of facts. Reliance placed on the directors' report does not support the case of the Revenue because the said report for the year ending on March 31, 1993 was submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings in the relevant assessment year and the assessment order for that year has been passed after....