TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard Mr. A.L.Somayaji, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G.Baskar, Learned counsel on record for the appellant-assessee and Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.P.Srinivas, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent- Revenue. 3. As mentioned, the assessment pertains to the assessment year 2006-07 relevant to the financial year 2005-06. The assessee filed E-return on 22.11.2006, pursuant to which, a notice under Section 142(1) dated 24.04.2008 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish various details as mentioned in the annexure to the said notice, which were as many as 31 details. The assessee through a Chartered Accountant submitted the details called for in the form of paper book along with letter dated 02.06.2008. It appears that the Assessing Officer held in discussion with the assessee and called for further details, which were supplied by the assessee through the Chartered Accountant by their letter dated 04.07.2008. Pursuant to which, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 17.09.2008. The Assessing Officer after expiry of four years issued notice under Section 148 of the Act date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 17.09.2008 and four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, viz., 2006-07 expires by 31.03.2011 and the notice of re-assessment having been issued on 21.03.2012, one year after the due date, cannot be valid unless and until it states as to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts or on account of existence of any fresh tangible material. The assessee relied upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their contentions. Further, it was submitted that the reopening is a case of change of opinion and such exercise cannot be done and to support such contentions, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). Without prejudice to the objections to the reopening of the assessment after assumption of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer submitted the following details with regard to the merits of the matter :- "26. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the assessee is a non-banking finance company incorporated on 31st A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the order disposing of the objections dated 01.11.2012, from which, we find that the Assessing Officer has not dealt with any of the objections raised by the assessee both on assumption of jurisdiction as well as on merits. But, merely refers to explanation 1 of section 147 and states that there is no change of opinion. The Assessing Officer refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd Vs. ACIT [2006] 151 Taxman 41. The assessee filed the writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 30610 of 2012 questioning the said proceedings dated 01.11.2012. The writ petition was pending and an order of interim stay was granted. The respondent filed the counter affidavit. We find from the counter affidavit in para 8 that the Assessing Officer has merely reiterated the stand taken by her, while disposing of the objections by order dated 01.11.2012, which was impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition was tagged along with a batch of cases. When writ appeals were also filed, some of which by the Revenue against the grant of interim orders by the Learned Single Bench and those batch of cases were dismissed on the ground that whether an ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the High Court. The appeals were allowed on the aforesaid terms. 7. Thus, in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Learned Single Bench was required to decide the matter on its own merits, bearing in mind the scope of judicial review, while entertaining such appeals. The writ petition in W.P. No.30610 of 2012 was not decided on merits, but, it has been disposed of as infructuous in view of the order passed in W.P.No.30980 of 2021. In fact, what was required to be decided at the first instance was W.P. No.30610 of 2012 in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this would suffice to hold that the order impugned in W.A. No.2452 of 2021 has to be set aside. However, the writ petition is of the year 2014 and the matters have been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have proceeded to consider the case on merits. 8. In the preceding paragraphs, while noting the facts, we have also made observation as to how the objections raised by the assessee were dealt with by the Assessing Officer, while passing the order dated 01.11.2012, which in our considered opinion does not sanctity of law. The larger issue is....