9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r concerns and the said queries were satisfied by the assessee concerned. The assessee also justified the purchases from the sister concern and also justified the purchase price paid to the sister concerns. Therefore, when the aforesaid issue was already gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, subsequent re-opening on the very ground can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] on the mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, reopening of assessment is not permissible. As observed hereinabove, the issue with respect to the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for AY 2005-2006, on the very ground on which the assessment for AY 2005- 2006 is sought to be reopened in the case of Messrs. Jivraj Tea Limited. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 15991 of 2010 are narrated. 4.1 The petitioner/assessee-Messrs. Jivraj Tea Limited filed return of income for A.Y 2005-2006 by declaring Nil the total income because of 80G deductions and 80IA deductions and Section 115JB book profit of ₹ 2,66,60,078/=. That, alongwith the return of income, the assessee produced audit report in Form No. 3CD. That thereafter, the petitioner-assessee was served with a Notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act, as the case was select ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties amounting to ₹ 3,30,46,636/= under Section 40A[2a] of the I.T Act. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that in the case of assessee Company M/s. Jivraj Tea Limited, income has escaped assessment to the extent of ₹ 3,30,46,636/= for A.Y 2005-06 . 4.2 That, the concerned assessee raised objections against the reasons to reopen the assessment submitted that the question with respect to the transactions with sister concerns and also the purchase price paid to the sister concerns was in fact gone into by the Assessing Officer at the time of scrutiny proceedings, and therefore, on the very ground, reopening is not permissible, as the same can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. That, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to transactions with the sister concerns and also with respect to the purchase price paid to the sister concerns was also gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, while framing the scrutiny assessment. To reopen the assessment on the very ground can be said to be a mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. In support of the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited , [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). 6. Both these petitions are vehemently opposed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue. It is submitted that in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Limited [Supra] on the mere change of opinion by the subsequent Assessing Officer, reopening of assessment is not permissible. 8. As observed hereinabove, the issue with respect to the purchases made from the sister concerns and the price paid to the sister concern was in fact gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the impugned Notices to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2005-2006 in each case on the grounds/ reasons stated by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set-aside on the aforesaid ground alone. 9. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
