TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be carried out within one week, notwithstanding the disposal of this petition. Mr. Suresh Kumar also had no objection. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing sale and trading of bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals, manufacturing and sale of animal health and nutrition products. Petitioner had filed return of income for A.Y.-2006- 2007 on 30th November 2006 declaring total income of Rs. 13,43,35,210/- under normal provisions and Rs. 82,54,99,551/- under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). Petitioner filed revised return of income on 31st March 2008 declaring total income of Rs. 14,52,44,314/- under normal provisions and Rs. 82,54,99,551/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and order u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Suresh Kumar was confronted with these facts. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted, relying on paragraph 21 of the affidavit in reply, that respondent no.2 had given the approval to issue notice under Section 148 as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act in accordance with law. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that the reasons were recorded on 25th March 2013 and approval dated 26th March 2013 was received in the office of respondent no.1 on 28th March 2013 and, therefore, the approval has been correctly granted. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Suresh Kumar because the documents speak otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever that the reasons were recorded on 25th March 2013. Even the copy of the reasons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered during the assessment proceedings and even if the assessment order is silent on one or two points, still as held by this court time and again, the Assessing Officer should be considered to have applied his mind, once a query is raised and answers are provided. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar in his submissions justified the reopening and went into the merits of the case. In short, he reiterated what is recorded in the reasons. 8. The reasons for reopening raised three issues and it read as under:- "................ 1. During the year assessee made onetime payment to M/s Atul Ltd to get itself released and discharged in respect of all the obligations of the company as lessee under the lease deeds including all the enviornmental claim or l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....why payment of Rs. 10 crores towards lease land at Valsad is to be considered as revenue in nature and allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. Also annexed to the petition is a letter dated 24th December 2009 addressed by petitioner to ACIT once again explaining the back ground regarding surrender of lease to Atul Ltd and also providing a copy of the lease agreement. In the said letter, petitioner has also referred to almost 7 replies addressed to the notices received from respondent no.1. Therefore, this has been a subject of consideration during the assessment proceedings. 10. As held in Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1) (2014) 44 taxmann.com 304 (Bombay) once a query is raised during the assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give power to the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment. Paragraph no. 14 of the said judgment read as under : 14. Now, in the case before us, the Income-tax Officer had, when he made the original assessment, considered the provisions of Sections 9 and 10. Any different view taken by him afterwards on application of those provisions would amount to a change of opinion on material already considered by him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under Section 147 (b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT, (1976) 102 ITR 287, where a Bench of learned Judges of this Court observed that a ca....