TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejecting the petitioner's objections. 2. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the assessment of the petitioner, which is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of polyester chips and film, to income-tax was first completed on 30-11-2006 under section 143(3) of the Act. It was sought to be reopened by issue of the impugned notice issued u/s. 148. The reasons for reopening, as recorded by the respondent No. 2 are: "On verification of the case records, it has been observed that the following amounts have remained to be added in the computation of income: (i) Provisions for obsolete inventories amounting to Rs.33.99 lacs have not been added back although these are unascertained liabilities. (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 321/2011 was filed before this court which was disposed of on 18-1-2011 with a direction to the petitioner to file further objections before the respondent along with the caselaw in support thereof, to be dealt with by the respondent in accordance with law. The order of this court is reproduced: "Heard Mr. R. Santhanam, learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the Revenue. Though many a prayer has been made in the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including declaring certain provisions of the Finance Act, 2008 to be unconstitutional, yet in course of hearing Mr. R. Santhanam, learned counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-section however shows that such sanction is required only if the notice is issued by an officer who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Herein, we find that the notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. No sanction is therefore required to be given by the Joint CIT. The objection is without any merit and is rejected. 6. The second contention is that the disallowance of the provision of Rs. 33.99 lacs for obsolete inventories, disallowance of the unabsorbed loss of Rs. 8.61 crores and the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 69.67 lacs were scrutinised and discussed in detail in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) and therefore it cannot be said that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us to show how the retrospectivity of operation of the provision to disallow the provision for deferred tax liability - clause (h) of Explanation 1 below section 115JB - was bad. No arguments were advanced before us on the point except an assertion. The judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Industries (supra) concerns the vires of AS-22 and has nothing to do with the provision now under challenge. It was not shown how the judgment in State of T.N. vs Shyamsunder (supra) was applicable to the present case. In fact, beyond a certain point, the contention was not pursued - perhaps realising the futility of the attempt. 9. The original assessment was made on 30-11-2006 under section 143(3). The Finance Act, 2008 inserted clause (h) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be validated and it is no answer to say that action should be taken under another section. Under this principle, it is held that one of the reasons for reopening in the present case being the retrospective amendment, the notice is valid. 10. The last argument of the petitioner is based on section 129. It is contended that the petitioner filed its objections to the notice before a particular officer, but the order rejecting those objections were passed by another officer which is opposed to the section and hence the order is invalid. The section reads as under: "129. Change of incumbent of an office Whenever in respect of any proceeding under this Act an income- tax authority ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded ....