TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to be rejected by an undated order passed by respondent No. 1. 2. According to Petitioner, respondent No. 1 has raised five issues which according to him represent the income which has escaped assessment. None of these five issues give him jurisdiction to reopen the assessment because not only Petitioner has made full and true disclosure of all material facts but there has also been full application of mind by respondent No. 1 at the stage of passing original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. In respect of the assessment year 2003-2004 Petitioner had filed return of income on 27th November, 2003 in which petitioner disclosed a total loss of Rs. 24,08,76,434/-. With the said return Petitioner filed statement of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons for reopening were raised during the assessment proceeding. Inquiries were made by Assessment Officer in the course of assessment proceeding and Petitioner has replied to each of these queries in detail. Mr. Gandhi submitted that once a query raised was the subject of consideration of the Assessment Officer while completing the assessment, it is not permissible on the same set of facts to reopen the assessment to take another view. Mr. Gandhi submitted that the change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5. We have considered the reasons for reopening the assessment with the assistance of Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Suresh Kumar. 6. The assessment i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....99/- being liability for increase in the value of third party securities under settlement is not allowable and (e) Claim of bad debts in the sum of Rs. 31,40,96,154/- which has been written off are not allowable to be written off. 9. We have considered the documents annexed to the petition and we are satisfied that on each of these five items, query was raised by the Assessing Officer in the notice dated 17th February, 2006 issued under section 142(1) of the Act and for each of these items, explanation has been given by petitioner in its letter dated 7th March, 2006. In fact, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer records the fact that the notice under section 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued to Petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self demonstrates the fact that notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same is not referred to in the assessment order dated 12 October 2010 passed for A.Y. 2008-09. We are of the view that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 12 October 2010. This change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 10. Therefore once a query is raised during the assessment proceeding and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject for consideration of the Assessment Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussions to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. There can be no doubt that in the present facts, the five points mentioned above, was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceeding leading to an order....