9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed and is allowed accordingly - Decided in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 15717 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2016 - K. S. Jhaveri And G. R. Udhwani, JJ. For the Petitioner : R. K. Patel, Darshan R. Patel For the Respondent : Sudhir M. Mehta, Advocate JUDGMENT K. S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated August 10, 2009 issued by the respondents at annexure-D to the petition whereby the respondents seek to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2003-04 for the reasons which are recorded as under : The return of income was filed on September 30, 2004 declaring total income at Rs. nil after claiming deduction under section 80-IB of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 determining total income at nil after allowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. Now the respondent seeks to reopen the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening of the assessment by the respondent is bad in law for the reasons that reopening exercise undertaken by the authority is beyond the period of four years from the date of assessment. For the assessment year 2003-04, the period will be over by March 31, 2008 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act after March 31, 2008 is bad in law. Even otherwise, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reopening of the assessment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the rejoinder affidavit and pointed out the fact that for the assessment years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2008-09 no reopening was done by the respondents even though identical claims were made. Therefore, the notice issued by the respondent authorities for reopening of the assessment for the year under consideration is bad in law and requires to be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Patel for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent authorities. We have gone through the reasons recorded at page No. 36 of the petition. We have also gone through the assessment order at page No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
