TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Later, two separate notices dated 7.3.2011 were issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on data captured in Assets Information Report (AIR). 5. Thereafter, on 31.12.2011, two separate assessment orders were passed by the respondent under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years and accordingly intimations were also issued to the petitioner to pay the revised tax assessment. 6. The petitioner took up the issue before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By two separate orders dated 12.11.2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the respective assessment orders under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the respondent had failed to follow the mandatory requirement of section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT versus K.M.Raviji vide order dated 18.7.2011 in Appeal No. 771 or 2010 and the decision of this court rendered in Sapthagiri Finance and investment versus ITO rendered on 17.7.2012 [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 341 (Mad) following the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive assessment years vide two separate communications dated 15.5.2015 which more or less reiterated the reasons given for reopening of the assessment years earlier vide a communication dated 13.6.2011. 13. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed both his objections dated 19.6.2015 against reopening of the assessment for the 2nd time. After setting out the entire history, it was submitted that the assessment having been reopened on an earlier occasion based on AIR information relating to investment in the shares and immovable property and the issue having attained finality on an earlier occasion, it was not open for the respondent to reopen the assessment for the second time in absence of any tangible material and it would amount to change of opinion which was impermissible. It was submitted that for invocation of section 148 to assess the income escaping assessment under section 147, there has to be reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment and the jurisdiction is conferred on the assessing officer. However, reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain precondition and Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment for mere change of opinion. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Vishal Gupta (2012) 210 Taxmann 65 wherein it was held that Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be invoked only where there is fresh materials available and that such notice should stand on its own legs. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 65 ITR 234, even if the Tribunal had erroneously set aside the assessment order, such order would be binding unless it is set aside by an appellate authority in the hierarchy. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rightly or wrongly the orders dated 12.11.2013 of the Appellate Commissioner had been complied by the respondent by giving effect to it on 27.11.2013 and therefore as long as that order giving effect to the said order of the Appellate Commissioner had remained unchallenged, it was not open for the revenue to reopen the assessment once again. 20.Per contra, the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the impugned notices in the consequential orders were in accordance with law and these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 were issued on 7.3.2011 for the respective assessment years. 26. Reassessment were thereafter completed however without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by invoking Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed two appeals filed by the petitioner and set aside the respective orders of re-assessment made by the respondent on 31.12.2011 vide orders dated 12.11.2013. Re-assessments made on 31.12.2011 were set aside on a technical ground of failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 143 (2) of the Act in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A CIT versus Hotel Blue Moon (2012) 321 ITR 362 and that of the decision of this court rendered in Sapathagiri Finance and Investment versus ITO (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 341. The assessment was not set aside on merits. 27. Notices dated 07.03.2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the respective assessment years were not set aside. For invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Limitation is prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. It reads as under :- ....