9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The revenue is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned facts. In the instant case, for the aforementioned reasons, the reopening of assessment for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and authorities assuming jurisdiction for the same has to be held invalid. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this preliminary ground itself. There is no necessity to examine the other contentions raised by petitioner. Thus issued under Section 148(1) is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO.54208 OF 2018 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.54209 OF 2018 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts objections bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2018-19/1013673599(1) dated 17.11.2018 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition and the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act bearing No. DCIT/C-111/2018- 19/148/AstraZeneca/12-13 dated 17.11.2018 vide Annexure-N to the writ petition for the assessment year 2012-13 are challenged. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it has been filing its returns regularly and has always made true and full disclosure of all necessary particulars. In the process, it had claimed certain exemption under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act and the said deductions were allowed by the revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, in the year 2018, after lapse of 4 years but before 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, for that assessment year . Section 149 (1)(b) as it stood then reads as under: 149. Time limit for notice.-( 1)No notice under section 148 shall be issued** for the relevant assessment year, - (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for the year ; 5. The High Court of Bombay in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B.Wadkar reported in [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (BOM.) while interpreting the aforemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced. 6. I find no reason to differ from the opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at all. Their case is that the claim of deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act as claimed by the petitioner was wrongly granted. The revenue is not in a position to dispute the aforementioned facts. In the instant case, for the aforementioned reasons, the reopening of assessment for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and authorities assuming jurisdiction for the same has to be held invalid. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this preliminary ground itself. There is no necessity to examine the other contentions raised by petitioner. Hence, the following: ORDER 1) The notice dated 28.03.2018 bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2017- 18/1009493181(1) issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
