9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same should not be arbitrary, irrational, vague or irrelevant. In the absence of such material, the action taken by the respondents cannot be sustained - The case in hand, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order have been passed only on presumption and conjectures, which is not permissible under the law. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., vs., the Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the right of personal hearing to the assessee is mandatory even if the assessee fails to submit objections to the pre-assessment notice. The impugned order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, granting permission to reopen the comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed making a best judgement assessment by enhancing the purchase of cement to the tune of ₹ 15 Lacs and imposed entry tax of ₹ 30,000/-. The petitioner assailed the said assessment order before the first appellate authority, who, by its order dated 14.08.2013, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the best judgement assessment. The petitioner has accepted the first appellate order and has not preferred any appeal. The respondent no. 2 issued notice dated 22.07.2017 under section 29(7) read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act for granting sanction to the Assessing Authority for initiation of reassessment proceedings. The petitioner filed its objection. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dated 07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court as well as by the Apex Court. Rebutting the argument, the counsel for the State relied upon the two impugned orders and emphasized that the present writ petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. On perusal of the record, it reveals that originally, the best judgment assessment was passed against the petitioner, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority, which means that the Assessing Authority, while framing the original assessment order, has gone deep into the record and verified the same and thereafter, made the best judgement assessment. The respondent no. 2, while granting permission by extending the period of limitation and reopening the completed assessment, had observed that since, seeing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial cannot be a reason to believe that a case of escaped assessment exists requiring assessment proceedings to be reopened. The Apex Court in paragraph 30 has held as follows: 30. In case of there being a change of opinion, there must necessarily be a nexus that requires to be established between the change of opinion and the material present before the assessing authority. Discovery of an inadvertent mistake or non-application of mind during assessment would not be a justified ground to reinitiate proceedings under section 21(1) of the Act on the basis of change in subjective opinion Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [1972] 3 SCC 231 1 and Income-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1975] 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
