AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has given relief to the assessee by deciding the appeal on merits whereas he has not adjudicated the legal issue in respect of the validity of the second notice issued by AO under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") without completing the reassessment after issuance of the first section 148 of the Act notice for reopening. According to Ld. Counsel, since this legal issue which is being raised if decided in favour of the assessee then the merits of the appeal challenged by the revenue before us would become academic in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made by the Ld. AR and after going through the legal issue raised by the assessee, we note that the issue regarding the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, the assessee had set up a shifting and rehabilitation fund for the purpose of shifting and rehabilitation, dealing with fire and stabilization of the areas under its wholly owned subsidiary companies M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. For that purpose, the assessee had collected contribution from the subsidiary companies which was utilized as per the action plan ordered by Ministry of Coal. The contribution made towards the fund was to the tune of Rs. 194.75 cr. which was shown in Schedule C with the audited accounts. The original assessment was carried out under scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act was framed by the AO vide order dated 02.12.2010. Thereafter, the AO issued the first reopening notice u/s. 148 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income on 17.11.2011. According to the Ld. Counsel, without disposing of the return of income filed in pursuance of the first notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.10.2011, the AO ought not to have issued the second notice of reopening u/s. 148 of the Act. For the aforesaid proposition of law he cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High court in A.S.S.P & Co. Vs. CIT reported in (1988)172 ITR 274 (Mad.) wherein a similar issue arose and the Hon'ble High court was pleased to hold that the second notice issued for reopening when the first notice for reopening pursuant to which the assessee had filed the return has not been disposed of then, the second notice of reopening could not have been issued by the AO and, therefore, it was found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and the original scrutiny assessment order for AY 2008-09 was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 02.10.2010. Thereafter, the AO issued the first reopening notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 19.10.2011 pursuant to which assessee duly filed the return of income dated 17.11.2011 which culminated in first reassessment order being passed on 25.03.2013. Before framing of the first reassessment order dated 25.03.2013, the AO issued the second reopening notice u/s. 148 on 19.03.2013 which culminated in the framing of second reassessment order dated 29.03.2014 which is the impugned re-assessment order, which was challenged by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alcutta High court decision in Indian Tube Co. Ltd. supra wherein the Hon'ble High courts have followed the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Raman Chettiar (1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC), which we will discuss infra. 8. Thus, we note that section 148 of the Act does not authorize the AO to issue fresh notice when proceedings on a previous notice u/s. 148 of the Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art Press Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 876 wherein it was held that when reassessment proceedings commence following the issue of a notice under section 148 and the same are pending, no fresh notice can be issued under the same provision. The Hon'....