TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenged the notice dated 27.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The petitioner filed its original return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 6,04,22,530/- under normal provisions and Rs. 4,89,22,528 book profit. Revised return of income was filed on 27.11.2015 declaring total income under normal provisions at Rs. Nil and book profit at Rs. 66,52,81,697/-. 3.2 The return of the petitioner was processed and the case of the Petitioner was selected for scrutiny. Detailed scrutiny was undertaken. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 26.10.2017 was issued asking inter alia specific details rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer has issued said notice on account of the change of opinion, which is not permissible. It was submitted that the return of the petitioner was processed as the case of the petitioner was selected for the scrutiny and detailed scrutiny was undertaken by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 26.10.2017 requiring the petitioner to file specific details relating to expenses relatable to exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. It was pointed out that the petitioner supplied such information and after considering the same, the assessment order dated 28.012.2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section 92 C A was passed for the year under consideration, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent submitted that the impugned notice is issued after recording the reasons in detail as the petitioner has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer on perusal of the available record found that the petitioner earned dividend income of Rs. 31,07,92,216/-, which was claimed as exempt against which the petitioner had invested his capital to earn such income and therefore, dis-allowance is required to be made as per the rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act which was left out during the course of the original proceedings and therefore, there is an escapement of income to that extent. It was, therefore, submitted that the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermissible. 9. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not be able to justify in the reasons recorded that the petitioner has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts during the course of the original assessment year and admittedly the impugned notice is issued beyond the period of four years for the relevant assessment year. In such circumstances, as per proviso to Section 147 of the act, the respondent would not have any jurisdiction to issue notice for reopening. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC) has held as under:- "6. ............prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditi....