AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) [2004] 268 ITR 332(Bom), wherein notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated November 5, 2002, for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 was the subject-matter of challenge. That petition was heard along with this petition as the parties were the same and one of the basic grounds of challenge being identical. 3. While deciding Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2003 [2004] 268 ITR 332(Bom), the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated November 5, 2002, for reopening the assessment of the assessment year 1996-97 was quashed and set aside by us holding that the said notice was without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nveyed to the company and the same had to be allocated and the allocation was done based on the book value of the assets as disclosed in the audited balance-sheet of the erstwhile Broke Bond Lipton India Ltd. as on December 31, 1995. The covering letter which accompanied the return also made a specific reference to the facts that the stamp duty paid was apportioned between the current and fixed assets and that the amount attributable to the current assets was considered as revenue expenditure. 5. In the course of the assessment proceeding various details were called for by respondent No. 2. One of the issues raised was regarding the allowability of the expenditure incurred by way of payment of stamp duty. In reply to the query raised by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of service of the notice. It is also stated that the notice was issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of respondent No. 3. 8. The petitioner by its letter dated November 5, 2002, requested respondent No. 1 to furnish the reasons recorded by him prior to the issuance of the impugned notice so as to enable the petitioner to comply with the requirements of the notice. The petitioner did not hear anything from respondent No. 1 and as the time for furnishing a return was coming to an end, the petitioner by its letter dated November 14, 2002, pointed out that although the proceedings initiated were without jurisdiction, the return was being filed without prejudice to its contentions and legal right to challenge the notice and respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns recorded prior to the issuance of the impugned notice be furnished to it. 10. In spite of the repeated requests, the respondents did not furnish reasons, if any, alleged to have been recorded by respondent No 1 prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned notice dated September 23, 2002. 11. On being noticed, the respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavit disclosing the reasons recorded prior to issuance of the notice under Section 148. The said reasons recorded read as under: "It is seen from the details on record that the assessee-company paid stamp duty of Rs. 23.29 crores on merger of M/s. Bro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. It may also be mentioned that an order under Section 263 was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-I on March 26, 2002, in regard to the issues like valuation of closing stock and recomputation of deduction under Section 80HHC. Thus, remedial action is now proposed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 12. The petitioner submits that the disclosure of reasons would make it clear that no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that assessment year has been alleged as such the notice is hit by the proviso t....