2021 (12) TMI 650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which petition has challenged the order dated 27th March 2021 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 147 of the Act, concluding the proceedings pursuant to the re-opening of the assessment. 2 We have perused the petition and the affidavit in reply with the assistance of Mr. Sriram and Mr. Walve and also considered the additional reply filed by respondents after the petition was amended. Mr. Sriram states if the court holds the notice of re-opening under Section 148 of the Act issued on 31st March 2019 is set aside, the consequential orders will also collapse. We agree with Mr. Sriram. Now let us examine whether the notice to reopen dated 31st March 2019, where respondents have stated that they have reasons to believe that petitioner's i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asons as it reads are merely change of opinion which is not permissible. There are two points on which respondents wanted to reopen, one is the rate of depreciation that was applied on cylinders and the second is a gift amounting to Rs. 42,25,000/- that petitioner had received from one Fazle Rehaman. As regards the depreciation on cylinders, petitioner had claimed @ 80% whereas according to the Assessing Officer, who wanted to reopen, the correct rate of depreciation was only @60%. In the assessment order originally passed on 9th March 2015, it says "the case is selected under CASS on the issue of ....... depreciation at higher rate". It further says the assessee has claimed higher rate of depreciation @ 80% and it is verified and allowed. ....