9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1). The sole ground on which the Tribunal quashed the reassessment, therefore, is not legally sustainable. The judgement of the Tribunal is therefore, set aside. Both the appeals are restored before the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law keeping all other contentions of both the sides open. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that it would be open for the assessee to challenge the validity of reopening on all grounds other than the one which we have found not sustainable. - Decided in favour of revenue - TAX APPEAL NO. 210 of 2016 With TAX APPEAL NO. 211 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012 upon which the assessee had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement set aside the entire assessment proceedings only on the ground that reopening of the assessment was not permissible in law. In this context, the Tribunal placed heavy reliance on decision of Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in (2013) 29 taxmann. Com 392 (Delhi) and held as under : 11. We put a specific query to both parties as to Whether the hon ble jurisdictional high court has rendered any such decision treating an assessment u/s. 143(1) at par with a regular assessment u/s.143(3) for adjudicating validity of a reopening. Both of them reply in negative. We reiterate that the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns. These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [(1996) 220 ITR 248]. It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted , with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him. It is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply is an emphatic no. The intimation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. , (supra) noticed such distinction and noted that the scheme of sections 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act is entirely different. 5. In case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax reported in (2013) 350 ITR 266(Guj), even in context of reassessment where original assessment was framed after scrutiny, this Court discarded the theory that tangible materials at the command of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment proceedings must be alien to the record of the assessment. This was also the view taken by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court by majority in case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Usha International Ltd. reported in (2012) 348 IR 485 (Delhi). 6. The sole ground on which the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
