9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or through their nominee such portion of the immovable property of petitioner as may be decided by ordinary resolution of the shareholders. Petitioner recouped the cost of construction of the building by issue of redeemable debentures to the shareholders of petitioner. 2. Petitioner filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 22nd September, 2008 declaring total income of Rs.(-)3,63,865/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 24th August, 2009. Later the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice dated 17th August, 2009 under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on petitioner on 26th August, 2009. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued under Section 142(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts required for assessment. We cannot make out, from the reasons for re-opening, that there has been any such failure. The entire basis for re-opening is relying upon the balance sheet filed by petitioner. The statement of Revenue that there has been failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts is only to get over restrictions imposed in Section 147 of the Act. On this ground alone the notice has to be quashed and set aside. 6. Moreover, since the issue of debentures has been a subject of consideration of assessment proceedings, re-opening on the same basis relying on the same primary facts disclosed based on change of opinion is not permissible. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 28 March 2013 seeks to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 was considered by the Assessing Officer while originally passing assessment order dated 12 October 2010. This by itself demonstrates the fact that notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same is not referred to in the assessment order dated 12 October 2010 passed for A.Y. 2008-09. We are of the view that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
