TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 (Act for short). Briefly stated, Jal Hotels Company Ltd. had, along with its Returns, filed copies of four Agreements that it had entered into with Sunair Hotel Ltd. - viz. (a)Hotel Management Agreement, (b)Technical Services Agreement, (c)Marketing Service Agreement and (d) Licence Agreement. The Assessment Orders dated 28.3.2005 are in respect of three Assessment Years, that is, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and specifically record the existence of these four Agreements. No doubt, the Assessment Orders are remarkable for their brevity but it is well established that the Assessing Officer is not obligated to mention and discuss each and every argument or issue which has arisen in the course of Assessment. It has been opined in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d cogitated upon these four Agreements. 2. The impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act mentions these Agreements and observes that "the assessee is running, managing and operating Hotel through Permanent Establishment, the income that the assessee earned through Permanent Establishment, has escaped assessment". Predicated thereon, the Respondent has stated that she has "reasons to believe after thorough application of mind that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment". Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the case manifests a change of opinion which, in a series of judgments, has been held not to be sufficient reason for reopening assessments already framed by resorting to Sections 147/148 of the Act. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s relied on Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2006] 281 ITR 394 which, being irreconcilable with the Full Bench view in Kelvinator, is per incuriam as has been so observed in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. ADIT, [2007] 292 ITR 49(Delhi). Regretfully, the Assistant Director of Income Tax has ignored the views of Division Benches in Techspan and Sita World, apart from the pronouncements of the Full Bench and Division Benches of the Delhi High Court. Furthermore, the view, which has been assailed before us, is contrary to Calcutta Discount in which the Constitution Bench opined that - "If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehensive with the mention of CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd., [1999] 237 ITR 13. In that case, the internal audit party had pointed out that the Trust to which donations had been made by the assessee did not qualify for deduction under Section 80G as the recognition had expired. Their Lordships considered this to be sufficient reason for reopening of the case; the new material obviously was in the form of the Audit Report. In this connection, however, the Three-Judge Bench in CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., [2001] 249 ITR306 has affirmed the opinion of the Madras High Court expressed in CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., [1998] 234 ITR 296 to the effect that an audit opinion in regard to application or interpretation of law cannot be treated by the Inc....