TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notice issued by the respondent dated 27.02.2017 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the order dated 13.07.2017, rejecting the petitioner s objection to the re-opening proceedings. 3.It may not be necessary for this Court to do a through factual exercise to ascertain as to whether the impugned re-opening is sustainable or not, as the re-opening is being challenged on a technical ground. The petitioner s company during the assessment year 2009-10 credited provisions amounting to Rs. 223.53 crore. These provisions represented unascertained liabilities, which were disallowed by the assessee in the assessment year 2009-10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 148 of the Act. The petitioner sought for reasons for re-opening vide letter dated 03.03.2017. On such request, the assessing officer furnished the reasons for re-opening vide communication dated 10.03.2017. 5.What is interesting to note is that the reasons for re-opening is verbatim repetition of the audit objections filed by the audit party. This position was clearly demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner by comparing the audit objection and the reasons for re-opening. Thus, it is clear that the assessing officer did not have any independent material to re-open the assessment, but merely proceeded to re-open the assessment on the ground that there was an audit objection. Thus, two issues arise for consideration. Firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment. In the present facts, it would be noticed that the reasons for which the assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 is sought to be reopened by communication dated 12.10.2011 are identical to the objection of the audit authority dated 29.12.2009. The reasons do not rely upon any tangible material in the audit report but merely upon an opinion and the existing material already on record. This itself indicates that there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer before he issued the impugned notice. On this ground alone, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer can be faulted." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars that no further appeal has been preferred by the Department. 9.Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the petitioner should be relegated to avail alternate remedy provided under the Act. It is further submitted that circular referred to by the petitioner viz., Circular No.8/16 dated 17.03.2016 has come into effect from 17.03.2016, and it shall be applicable only to the objections/LAR received from the said date so that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax could inform the AG within two months from the date of receipt of the LAR. Further, it is submitted that remedial action has been initiated and as per the existing CBDT instruction, which will be bindin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Loss on Sale of investment in Subsidiary Company Details furnished as Annexure-VI b) Provision made for diminution in the value of investment company written back; Provision made for Diminution in the value of investment in DBS Cholamandalam Distribution Limited during the preceding ass. Year (AY 2009-10) Rs. 2353.00 Lakhs. The same was also disallowed in the relevant asst. year in the Statement of Taxable income. During the current assessment year, in view of the improvement in the financials of the said subsidiary, it was decided to withdraw the provision. The withdrawal of provision amounting to Rs. 2353.00 Lakhs credited to Profit and Loss Account, is not considered as part of income for income tax purposes, since the ....