TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner had converted the partnership firm into a Private Limited Company. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 17 of the audit report, it was specifically stated that profit earned till 30.6.2011 was transferred to the successor company, viz. M/s Giriraj Iron Ltd. The assessee firm filed return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 22.8.2012, declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and after making detailed inquiry, the Assessing Officer accepted the return of income. 5. It may be pertinent to note that the profit for the entire year of the petitioner M/s Giriraj Steel and the successor company, M/s Giriraj Iron Ltd. was offered for tax in the books of M/s Giriraj Iron Ltd. and the same was assessed by the Assessing Officer of M/s Giriraj Iron Ltd. vide order dated 28.2.2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Subsequently, by the impugned notice, the Assessing Officer has assumed jurisdiction to reassess the income of the petitioner for assessment year 2012-13. By a letter dated 20.3.2017, the petitioner requested the respondent to accept the return of income filed by it earlier and also requested for a copy of the reasons recorded, which came to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 350 ITR 266 (Guj.), wherein the court has held that when in an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, if a certain claim of the assessee is not examined, no queries are raised or answers elicited, it cannot be stated that merely because the Assessing Officer did not reject such a claim in the final order of assessment, he should be deemed to have expressed an opinion with respect to such a claim and any reopening of an assessment of this nature even within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year would amount to change of opinion. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, there is nothing to show that the Assessing Officer had raised any queries with respect to the ground on which the assessment is sought to be reopened, nor has the Assessing Officer discussed the issue in the assessment order. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of name of the firm and introduction of other persons as partners as mention in AoA of the company, is not acceptable in view of contrary evidences. The assessee firm was required to be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year in which succession took place up to the date of succession are prescribed u/s 170(i) of the Act. As assessee has income of Rs. 1,08,92,638/- as on 30.06.11. In view of the above, I am satisfied that there is under assessment in this case for the relevant assessment year 2012-13. I therefore have reasons to believe that Rs. 1,08,92,638/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and is fit case for reopening u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. The case is reopened after approval from the Jt. CIT, Range-1(2), Ahmedabad vide his letter bearing no Joint CIT/R- 1/2/Ahm/Revenue Audit Objection/148/2016-17 dated 01.03.2017." 8. On a plain reading of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the assessment is sought to be reopened on the ground that the partnership firm was converted into a company and that the firm viz., Giriraj Steel remained in being till 30.6.2011. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....detailed questionnaire had been issued to the assessee along with the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The submissions of details and explanation furnished by the petitioner clearly show that it has explained that the firm was converted into a company with all assets and liabilities and that the profit earned by the firm was disclosed in the profit and loss account of the company. The Assessing Officer, upon being convinced by the explanation given by the petitioner, has accepted the return of income as filed by the petitioner during the course of scrutiny assessment. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the issue in question and has accepted the same. While, in the assessment order there is no discussion about the issue in respect of which the assessment is sought to be reopened, however, having regard to the facts noted hereinabove, the only issue that could have been before the Assessing Officer would be in relation to the non-disclosure of any income in the return of income filed by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order, has recorded that after verification and discussion and from the data made available, the tota....