TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 on 6th February 2013. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the said Act and after the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, an assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the said Act on 23rd March 2015 accepting the returned income as such. 3. In April 2011, one Reckitt Benckister Investments India Private Limited (RBIIPL) acquired 100% stake in a company Paras Pharmaceuticals Limited (Paras) for a consideration of Rs. 3272.8 Crores. Petitioner was incorporated on 15th June 2011 to carry on business of trading in personal care products. Petitioner entered into negotiations with RBIIPL and Paras for acquiring their personal care business. RBIIPL, Paras and petitioner came to an understanding by which RBIIPL would merg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sferred under the Scheme of Demerger, relevant extracts of financial statements etc. were also filed. After considering the documents and the submissions made by petitioner, the assessment proceedings, as noted earlier, were completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act and an assessment order dated 23rd March 2015 accepting the income offered in the return of income was passed. 6. Subsequent to completion of assessment proceedings, respondent, vide letter dated 18th July 2017 raised a query regarding provision for sales return of Rs. 4,42,64,416/- and other operating expenses of Rs. 85,58,620/-. Petitioner responded vide a detailed letter dated 9th October 2017. Nothing happened thereafter. 7. One fine day, petitioner received a not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng factual correctness on this aspect is also not of relevance at this stage .......... 8. Therefore, once he accepts that the reasons to believe are found mainly in respect of the amount of provision for sales return as the expenditure was not incurred during the previous year as also the amount of other operating expenses and once he accepts that he was wrong in assuming so, there can be no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. What the JAO has stated in the reasons for reopening is that even if the effective date declared by the company was 1st March 2012 and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has endorsed it by approving the Scheme of Amalgamation in its order dated 18th April 2012 because the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the very same material with a view to take another view. In the reasons recorded also the JAO in effect says, as could be seen from paragraph 5 therein, that it was a change of opinion. Paragraph 5 reads as under : 5. Findings of the AO - Prima-facie it appears that the assessee has erred in claiming deduction as discussed above and this has resulted in allowance of excess deduction of Rs. 5,11,10,711/- (44264416 + 6846295). Therefore, following the provisions of Section 2(1B), Section 37 and Section 35DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is being inferred hereby that assessee has claimed irregular expenditure in its accounts after amalgamation process. 11. Since the notice under Section 148 of the said Act has been issue....