2019 (7) TMI 1048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....admitted, it would suffice to answer the following question, which would cover all the substantial questions of law. Accordingly, the appeal is entertained on the following substantial question of law. "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the re-assessment framed in terms of Section 147 read with 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2001-02 by the respondent in the second attempt even though there were no fresh materials in his possession justifying the action?" 2. Heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the assessee and Ms.Premalatha, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the reopening of the assessment was valid. The assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai (hereinafter referred to as CIT 'A'), who dismissed the appeal by an order dated 06.02.2008 on the ground that the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) dated 29.01.2004 is not an order and therefore the notice issued under Section 148 dated 13.03.2007 cannot be stated to be reopening of assessment, as it is an assessment by itself, and that an intimation is not an order of assessment. Similar was the view taken by the tribunal as well, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. This is how the assessee is before us, by way of this appeal. 4. There is no quarrel about the legal position as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of "ACIT -Vs- Rajesh Jhav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able to appreciate what permits the Revenue to assume that somehow the same rigorous standards which are applicable in the interpretation of the expression when it is applied to the reopening of an assessment earlier made under Section 143(3) cannot apply where only an intimation was issued earlier under Section 143(1). It would in effect place an assessee in whose case the return was processed under Section 143(1) in a more vulnerable position than an assessee in whose case there was a full-fledged scrutiny assessment made under Section 143(3). Whether the return is put to scrutiny or is accepted without demur is not a matter which is within the control of assessee; he has no choice in the matter. The other consequence, which is somewhat g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 11.07.2019, had distinguished the decision of "CIT -Vs- Orient Craft Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 536" and "TANMAC India -Vs- Deputy CIT, Pondicherry (2017) 78 Taxmann.com 155 (Madras)". It is true that this Court has distinguished the aforesaid decisions in the case of "Diebold Systems Pvt Ltd., -Vs- IT Officer (OSD)", on the ground that in the said case assessment was reopened based on factual material, which were available with the assessing officer subsequent to the intiation issued under Section 143(1) and to be precise, in the next assessment year, where the assessing officer found that no services were rendered by the assessee for their unit at Pondicherry. Therefore, the said decision will not aid the case of the Revenue. 8. The legal ....