9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only because the year under consideration being A.Y. 2018-19 no scrutiny assessment is undertaken by the respondent Assessing Officer and this being a new regime of reassessment after 1st April, 2021, no different treatment can be given for reopening only because the scope is enlarged by the amended provisions for reopening. In our opinion, when the earlier assessment years which are subjected to reopening for which the notice is already quashed on the same material, there cannot be a reopening for the year under consideration and therefore, the impugned order, as well as, the notice is also required to be quashed and set aside. Petition allowed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA MR. TUSH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entries appearing in the bank statement and difference if any arises on account of foreign exchange fluctuation between the entry already captured in the books of accounts and the settlement thereof as per the bank statement had already been disclosed at foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss in the books of accounts of the assessee company. Hence, the difference identified between the bank remittance Data (Bill IDs) maintained by the bank and the bank statement of the assessee company would have no bearing on the books of accounts of the assessee company on the income as well and therefore, there is no question of any escapement of income. 5. The respondent Assessing Officer however, without considering the above explanation and the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued u/s. 148 of the Act. 7. Mr. Tushar Hemani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same submissions, which are made for earlier two assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017- 18 for which Special Civil Application no.4383 of 2022 and Special Civil Application no.4986 of 2022 are allowed after order passed of even date of this Court, and it was submitted that on the same reasoning the impugned order passed u/s.148A(d) and notices are required to be quashed and set aside. 7.1 It was submitted that merely because the case of the petitioner is not selected for scrutiny for the year under consideration, ground of challenge of change of opinion would not be available to the petitioner, but the basic fallacy in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date passed in the earlier A.Ys. for 2016-17 and 2017-18 in Special Civil Application no.4383 of 2022 and Special Civil Application no.4986 of 2022, we are of the opinion that on same material only because the year under consideration being A.Y. 2018-19 no scrutiny assessment is undertaken by the respondent Assessing Officer and this being a new regime of reassessment after 1st April, 2021, no different treatment can be given for reopening only because the scope is enlarged by the amended provisions for reopening. In our opinion, when the earlier assessment years which are subjected to reopening for which the notice is already quashed on the same material, there cannot be a reopening for the year under consideration and therefore, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
