2018 (2) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SHAH, ADVOCATE For The Respondent : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening dated 27.03.2017 issued by the respondentAssessing Officer. 2. Facts are as under. 3. Petitioner is an individual. For the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner had filed the return of income on 20.09.2010 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reason to believe that income has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 40,00,000/as stated above. As such assessment for A.Y. 201011 is require to be reopened in terms of provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by invoking the provisions of section 148 of the I.T. Act since there is an escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the the Income Tax Act. In view of the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Officer on any of the issues involved in the assessment, in the context of reopening of the assessment, the concept of change of opinion would not be relevant. Nevertheless, even in such a case it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to arbitrarily or to indiscriminately reopen the assessments. In such a case also, as held and observed by this Court in case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reopening the assessment, he stated that he need to verify the claims. In the second ground, he had recorded that admissibility of the bad debts written off required to be verified. In the fourth ground also, he had recorded that admissibility of royalty claim was required to be verified. We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that for mere verification of the c....