9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2010 (3) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer in seeking to reopen the assessment must be determined with reference to the reasons which are found in support of the reopening of the assessment. These reasons cannot be allowed to be supplemented on a basis which was not present to the mind of the officer and could not have been so present on the date on which the power to reopen the assessment was exercised. We, therefore, hold that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Max India (2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India) would be attracted to the present case. Consequently, it is evident that the order of the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the due date of filing of return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 i.e. 31st October, 2003. Further, at the time of computing the book profits for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act, the diminution in value of investment was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer, as it was not specifically provided therein at the relevant time. 4 Thereafter on 27th December, 2006, the impugned notice was issued, seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2003-04. The reasons in support of the impugned notice as furnished to the Petitioner reads as under: 1. In this case return of income was filed on 28.10.2003 declaring income of ₹ 3195170. Assessment was made vide order u/s. 143(3) dt. 12.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich provisions of explanation 2(c)(i) (iii) of sec. 147 are applicable. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Limitation for approval and issue of notice expires on 31.3.2008. From the above, it is evident that the grounds for reopening the assessment was two fold as under: (i) Petitioner not entitled to deduction under Section 80M of the Act; and (ii) The diminution in value of investment was not considered/ added while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 5 The Petitioner filed their objections by letter dated 15th January, 2007 to the reopening notice and the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29th January, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner of Income Tax 323 ITR 54 which was negatived. In the above case, this Court, inter alia observed in paragraph 22 as under: 22. In the present case, the principle of law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 would be attracted. On the date on which the Assessing Officer purported to exercise his power to reopen the assessment under Section 147, the legislative amendment by the insertion of clause (i) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB had not been brought into force on the statute book. Obviously, therefore, the subsequent amendment could not have been and is not a ground which has been taken by the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment. The validity of the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
