Madras High Court
Cairn India Ltd vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax-I on 1 September, 2021
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
Cairn India Ltd.,
(Formerly Known as Cairn Energy
India Private Limited)
Rep.by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.Navin Jain,
3rd & 4th Floor, Vipul Plaza,
Suncity, Setor-54,
Gurgaon – 122 002,
Haryana. ..Petitioner
vs
Deputy Director of Income Tax-I,
(International Taxation)
Room No.703, IInd Floor,
Annexe Building, Aaykar Bhawan,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent
in respect of PAN No.AAACC3097L and impugned Notice u/s 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2012 and the consequential Order dated
05.03.2013 passed by the Respondent disposing off the Objections to the
initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.
1/48
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Agarwal
Senior counsel
Assisted by Mr.M.V.Swaroop
For Respondent : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan
Senior Standing counsel
[For Income Tax]
ORDER
The writ on hand is filed, questioning the legal validity of initiation of
reopening proceedings and the disposal of the objections by the respondent.
2. The petitioner being a Company incorporated in New South Wales,
Australia was a subsidiary of Cairn Energy PLC based in Edinburgh and is
engaged in the business of exploration and production of oil and gas in India
since 1996. By an order of the Bombay High Court dated June 22, 2010 in
Company Petition No.155 of 2010, the present petitioner took over the
business of Cairn Energy India Private Limited and filed the present writ
petition.
3. The petitioner company filed its return of income under Section 139
(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] on
16.11.2006 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, declaring a loss of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
Rs.43,95,90,051/-. The petitioner states that the return of income was filed
with true and adequate income of the petitioner along with the audited
financial statements, Tax Audit Report as required under Section 44AB of
the Act. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny. Notice was
issued. The petitioner submitted further documents, materials and answered
the queries. The case of the petitioner was referred to Transfer Pricing
Officer, who in turn, submitted a report on the Arm’s length price. After
completing the process of scrutiny, the assessment officer passed the final
assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act in order dated 01.03.2010.
4. While so, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated
29.03.2012 under Section 148 of the Act, which was received by the
petitioner company on 03.04.2012. In response, the respondent company
filed its return of income and requested to furnish reasons. The reasons were
supplied to the petitioners. The initiation of reopening proceedings
admittedly is beyond the period of four years, but within six years. The
petitioner submitted its detailed objections on the reasons furnished and the
respondents disposed of the objections by rejecting the same. Thus, the writ
petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner broadly raised several grounds for assailing the reopening
proceedings. It is contended that 'reasons to believe' had been recorded prior
to issuance of notice. There is no failure on the part of the petitioner to
produce the materials fully and truly. Thus, the requirement contemplated
under Section 147 that the Assessing Officer must have 'reason to believe' is
not satisfied. It is contended that the Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Act
has no application in the case of the writ petitioner. Thus, the reopening is
mere change of opinion. In support of the of the said contentions, the learned
Senior Counsel made the following submissions:
(a) It is at this stage submitted the reasons to believe are not
plenary but are subject to judicial review. In support, the petitioner seeks to
rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Asoke
Kumar Sen Vs. ITO reported in 132 ITR 707. This judgment has been
rendered on a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, wherein their Lordships of
the High Court of Delhi held at Page.710 as under:
“The words "if the Income-tax Officer has reason to
believe" used in s. 147(a) suggest that the belief must be that
of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
grounds and that the ITO may act under this section on direct
or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip
or rumour. The powers under this section are not plenary.
They are subject to judicial review. The ITO in his affidavit
has merely stated his belief but has not set out any material on
the basis of which he formed such belief. there is nothing in
the affidavit to suggest that the ITO had any material before
him that would warrant a belief that a part of the income of the
petitioner had escaped assessment by reason of his failure to
make a true and full disclosure of the material facts. (See ITO
v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1 SC.)
The words "reason to believe" appear in most modern
statutes. Words such as "reasonable cause to believe" or "has
reason to believe" are commonly found when a Legislature or
law-making authority confers powers on a minister or official.
As Lord Radcliffe said [1980] 2 WLR 1, 22 (HL) :
"However read, they must be intended to serve in some sense
as a condition limiting the exercise of an otherwise arbitrary
power. (Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne [1951] AC 66, 77 (PC)".
These words do not make conclusive the officer's own honest
opinion that he had reasonable cause for the prescribed
belief.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
The grounds on which the officer acted must be sufficient to
induce in a reasonable person the required belief before he
can validly reopen a completed assessment under s. 147(a). In
England, the majority in Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] AC
206 (HL) held that the belief entertained by the officer was not
justiciable. Lord Atkin dissented. Now, it had been held by the
House of Lords in the recent tax decision of IRC v.
Rossminster Ltd. [1980] 2 WLR 1, 49 (HL), that Lord Atkin
was right and that the majority were wrong. Lord Diplock has
said :
"..... I think the time has come to acknowledge openly that the
majority of this House in Liversidge v. Anderson were
expediently and, at that time, perhaps, excusably, wrong and
the dissenting speech of Lord Atkin was right."
Lord Scarman at p. 104 (of [1980] 1 All ER) said that the
ghost of Liversidge v. Anderson no longer flutters in the pages
of our books and need no longer haunt the law. It was laid to
rest by Lord Radcliffe in Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne [1951] AC
66, 75 (HL) and no one has sought to revive it. It is now
beyond recall.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has held that
the matter is justiciable. [See ITO v. Madnani Engineering
Works[1979] 118 ITR 1 SC.] (Emphasis Supplied)”
(b) It would be seen from the aforesaid judgment that the Apex Court
in its judgment reported in 118 ITR 1 has held that existence of reason to
belief on part of the ITO is a justiciable issue. The same opinion had also
been expressed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO, reported in 41 ITR 191.
(c) The petitioner also seeks to rely on the judgment of Apex Court in
the case of ITO Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, reported in 103 ITR 437 at
Pg.448, it has been held as under:
“As stated earlier, the reasons for the formation of the
belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing
on the formation of the belief. Rational connection postulates
that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the
material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the
formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the
income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year
because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material
facts. It is no doubt true that the court cannot go into the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own
opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the point as to
whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At
the same time we have to bear in mind that it is not any and
every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant,
remote and far- fetched, which would warrant the formation of
the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee
from assessment. The fact that the words "definite information"
which were there in section 34 of the Act of 1922 at one time
before its amendment in 1948 are not there in section 147 of the
Act of 1961 would not lead to the conclusion that action cannot
be taken for reopening assessment even if the information is
wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched and remote. The reason
for the formation of the belief must be held in good faith and
should not be a mere pretence. (Emphasis supplied)”
In the long line of decisions of the Apex Court, it has been held that the
power u/s 147 of the Act are not plenary and are subject to the judicial
review.
(d) The petitioner thus prays that if the reasons recorded are
perused for the sake of convenience which are extracted hereinabove, it
would be seen that;
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
(i) The petitioner has disclosed the complete facts in the return of
income/books of account/assessment proceedings and there is no allegation
that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Infact, admittedly, reasons to believe has been formed on the basis of the
return of income/existing material, without any fresh tangible material.
(ii) It is a case where the AO while framing assessment had
considered all such material facts which are the basis for initiating the
proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. It thus amounts to review as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities
Primary Dealership ltd., reported in 348 ITR 299 at Pg.301.
(iii) That no fresh material had surfaced from the date of completion
of assessment till the proceedings were initiated.
(iv) It is a case of mere change of opinion and there has been
otherwise no escapement of any income. The submission is that the initiation
of proceedings are without jurisdiction and as such deserves to be quashed.
(v) The reasons have been recorded on incorrect facts as such,
assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law.
(vi) That no reasons had been recorded before initiating the
proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
(vii) To justify the reopening of the assessment, only reasons recorded
has to be looked into.
(viii) No sanction as is mandated under Section 151(1) of the Act had
obtained by the AO from the Director of Income Tax/Commissioner of
Income Tax.
(e) Scope of provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The
petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Apex Court in its judgment in the
case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in 41 ITR 191,
examined the scope of provisions of Section 34 of the Act and held at Pg.199
as under:
“To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue
notice in respect of assessments beyond the period of four
years, but within a period of eight years, from the end of the
relevant year two conditions have therefore to be satisfied.
The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to
believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-
tax have been under-assessed. The second is that he must
have also reason to believe that such " under assessment "
has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the
part of an assessee to make a return of his income under s.
22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his
assessment for that year. Both these conditions are conditions
precedent to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer could
have jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or re-
assessment beyond the period of four years but within the
period of eight years, from the end of the year in
question.(Emphasis supplied)”
(f) It is the submission of the petitioner that if the aforesaid tests as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (which holds good till date) when
is applied, would show that the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent
to issue the notice and initiate the proceedings is outside the scope of the
provisions of Section 147 of the Act. It had been held as above that before
assuming jurisdiction both the conditions are to be satisfied namely:(i) there
had to be omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts; and
(ii) that the AO is having a reason to believe. In the instant case both the
conditions are not satisfied. Indeed even the reasons had not been recorded
and also there had been no failure to disclose fully and truly all material
facts. Without prejudice, even the reasons recorded and supplied to the
petitioner shows that such reasons are merely based on change of opinion.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
The petitioner further submitted that in the said judgment of Calcutta
Discount Co., Ltd., (Supra) at Pg.202-203, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as under:
“The only nondisclosure mentioned in the report is that
the company had failed to disclose " the true intention behind
the sale of the shares ". Mr. Choudhury contends that this is
not an omission to disclose a material fact within the meaning
of s. 34. The question whether sales of certain shares were by
way of changing the investments or by way of trading in
shares has to be decided on a consideration of different
circumstances, including the frequency of the sales, the
nature of the shares sold, the price received as compared with
the cost price, and several other relevant facts. It is the duty
of the assessee to disclose all the facts which have a bearing
on the question; but whether the assessee had the intention to
make a business profit as distinguished from the intention to
change the form of the investments is really an inference to
be drawn by the assessing authority from the material facts
taken in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances.
The law does not require the assessee to state the conclusion
that could reasonable drawn from the primary facts.
The question of the assessee's intention is an inferential fact
and so the assessee's omission to state his " true intentions
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
behind the sale of shares " cannot by itself be considered to
be a failure or omission to disclose any material fact within
the meaning of s. 34. Indeed, an assessee whose contention is
that the shares were sold to change the form of investment and
not with the intention of making a business profit cannot be
expected to say that his true intention was other than what he
contended it to be.. Dealing with this question the learned
Chief Justice has said:-
" The expression that the Respondent had failed to disclose "
the true intention behind the sale of shares " may lack
directness, but that deficiency of language is not sufficient to
enable the Respondent to contend, in view of the
circumstances alleged, that no failure to disclose facts was
being complained of. On the facts as stated by the Income-tax
Officer, it is clear that there had been a failure to disclose the
fact that the Respondent was a dealer in shares and what the
Income-tax Officer meant by the language used by him was
that the Respondent had not disclosed that the sale of shares
had been of the nature of a trading sale, made in pursuance of
an intention to make a business profit, and not of the nature of
a change of investment, made in pursuance of an intention to
put certain capital assets into another form. If that be so, it is
equally clear that the Income-tax Officer who, by the way, was
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
a successor to the officers who had made the original
assessments, was not merely changing his opinion as to facts
previously known, but was taking notice of a new
fact." (Emphasis supplied)
The petitioner submitted that Section 34 of Income Tax Act, 1922, which is
pari-materia to section 147 of the Income Tax Act only provides special
jurisdiction. In the Income Tax Act, there is no concept of any other
assessment other than the assessment or reassessment and that too on
specified pre-requisite of Section 147 of the Act.
(g) Explanation (1) to Section 147 of the Act is inapplicable:
It is submitted that in the present case, complete facts in respect
of production bonus was disclosed in the books of account and also in the
original assessment proceedings and as such, Explanation -1 of section 147
cannot be invoked. It is submitted that in fact, in the original assessment
proceedings query in respect of difference between the amount of production
bonus claimed and stated in statement was raised which was duly explained
in the reply of the petitioner and after being satisfied with the reply/evidence,
no adverse view was formed in the order of assessment. As such, it is not a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
case of mere filing of the details, but is a case, where respondent after due
enquiry has accepted the claim. There is no fresh material to take a contrary
view. The petitioner has cited below judgments wherein the scope of the
provisions of Explanation (1) to section 147 has been explained. It has been
held in these judgments that if the details have been filed and in the original
assessment proceedings and the issue has been duly examined by the
Assessing Officer, then provision of Explanation 1 does not get attracted:
i. CIT Vs. Schwing Stetter India (P) Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 380
(Madras)
“15. The reliance placed by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the Revenue on Explanation 1 to section
147 of the Income-tax Act cannot be pressed into service by the
Department in the instant case because the details of such
claim has been revealed in the tax audit report and
apparently, the same has been considered by the Assessing
Officer at the time of passing an order under section 143(3) of
the Income-tax Act. Therefore, Explanation 1 does not get
attracted to this case. Explanation 2(c)(i) and (iii) to section
147 of the Income-tax Act, which is sought to be invoked in the
present case, can arise only in a case where the Department is
able to establish that there is income escaping assessment and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
the proviso to section 147 gets attracted. In this case, we find
that the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
and the Tribunal is that the proviso to section 147 of the
Income-tax Act did not get attracted and it is a case of mere
change of opinion of the Assessing Officer.”
ii. CIT Vs. Baer Shoes (India) (P) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 435
(Madras)
“8. In our considered view, the said explanation also
does not apply to the present case on hand. A perusal of the
said explanation would show that a mere production of
accounts books and other evidence could have been discovered
by the Assessing Officer would not amount to disclosure within
the meaning of the provision. Therefore, the said Explanation-
1 should be considered in the context of the provision,
inasmuch as the same is applicable only for the production of
the records and other evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion
that the same will not be applicable to the case of filing of a
return with adequate particulars fully disclosing all the
materials for the purpose of assessment.”
iii. Asianet Star Communications (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-Tax [2020] 422 ITR 47 (Madras)
“Where benefit of proviso is claimed by revenue, it
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
would first have to satisfy condition under proviso and
validate assumption of jurisdiction beyond four years and only
thereafter revenue can seeks application of Explanation to
Section 147.”
iv. MBI Kits International Vs. Income Tax Officer [2018] 408 ITR
1 (Madras)
“18. Every non disclosure of material facts will not or
cannot be a justifiable reason for reopening sustainable under
judicial scrutiny. On the other hand, such non disclosure of a
material fact must be of such nature that, but for such non
disclosure, the income, relatable to such material fact, would
not have escaped assessment. In other words, it should lead to
an irrebuttable conclusion that by the conduct of the assessee,
either by providing wrong or incorrect particulars or by not
providing the full and correct particulars, he should have made
the Assessing Officer not to bring a particular income to tax,
which is otherwise liable to be taxed. If this test is applied to
the present case, I am of the view that the Revenue has to fail.”
v. CIT vS. Arvind Remedies Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 547 (Madras)
“Explanation 1 to section 147 of the Income-tax Act
cannot be pressed into service by the Department in the instant
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
case because the details of such claim has been revealed
during the regular assessment and complete details have been
provided before the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing Officer
has not considered the same at the time of passing an order
under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee cannot
be fastened with any liability for the same.
Therefore, Explanation 1 to section 147 does not get attracted
to this case. In this case, we find that the finding of the Tribunal
is that the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act does not
get attracted since it is clear from the order of the Tribunal that
it was failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to consider
the material and the assessee had placed all the materials
before the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment.”
vi. EL Forge Ltd., Vs. DCIT / [2014] 224 Taxman 222 (Madras)
“7. The facts of the case show that there was no denial
of the fact that the assessee had disclosed the details as
regards the carry forward of the losses as well as the income
computed and all these details were very much there before
the Assessing Officer; that there is no denial of the fact that
there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing
the facts necessary for assessment and that there is no such
allegation that the escapement of income was on account of the
failure of the assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
material facts. In the circumstances, applying the Supreme
Court decision referred to above, we have no hesitation in
accepting the plea of the assessee that the assumption of the
jurisdiction beyond four years is hit by limitation as provided
under Section 147 proviso. Even though, on the merits of the
assessment, the assessee's case has to fail, yet, on the limited
question as regards the jurisdictional time limit as provided
for under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is
entitled to succeed. Since limitation is the fundamental aspect
of the assessment, we have no hesitation in setting aside the
order of the Tribunal, thereby allowing the appeal.”
vii. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sonitpur Solves Ltd., 352
ITR 305 (Gau)
viii. SAK Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax (Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
WP(C).No.1884/2012 dated 16.07.2012) para 9-13(Del)
ix. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income-tax [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi)
x. SMCC Construction India ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner
of Income-tax [2014] 220 Taxman 125 (Delhi) (MAG)
xi. Canon India Private Limited Vs. ACIT
WP(C).No.2768/2012 dated 31.07.2012 HC Delhi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
(h) Change of opinion: The petitioner further submitted that though
a statutory amendment had been made in section 148 of the Income Tax Act
w.e.f.01.04.1989, however, the Apex Court in 320 ITR 561, while affirming
the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of
India Ltd., reported in 256 ITR 1 (FB) held as under:
“On going through the changes, quoted above, made to
Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under
the above two conditions and fulfilment of the said conditions
alone conferred jurisdiction on the assessing officer to make
a back assessment, but in Section 147 of the Act (with effect
from 1-4-1989), they are given a go-by and only one
condition has remained viz. that where the assessing officer
has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment,
confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore,
post-1-4-1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one
needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason
to believe” failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would
give arbitrary powers to the assessing officer to reopen
assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which
cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in
mind the conceptual difference between power to review and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
power to reassess. The assessing officer has no power to
review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to
be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the
concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on
behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the
assessment, review would take place. One must treat the
concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check
abuse of power by the assessing officer. Hence, after 1-4-
1989, the assessing officer has power to reopen, provided
there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that
there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons
must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our
view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of
the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the
words “reason to believe” but also inserted the word
“opinion” in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of
representations from the companies against omission of the
words “reason to believe”, Parliament reintroduced the said
expression and deleted the word “opinion” on the ground
that it would vest arbitrary powers in the assessing officer.
We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.
549 dated 31-10-1989, which reads as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
“7.2. Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to
reintroduce the expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 147.
—A number of representations were received against the
omission of the words ‘reason to believe’ from Section 147
and their substitution by the ‘opinion’ of the Assessing
Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression,
‘reason to believe’ had been explained in a number of court
rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from
Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing
Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of
opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has
again amended Section 147 to reintroduce the expression
‘has reason to believe’ in the place of the words ‘for reasons
to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion’. Other
provisions of the new Section 147, however, remain the
same.”
(emphasis supplied)
(i) The petitioner however adds that the Division Bench of High Court
of Delhi in its judgment reported in 256 ITR 1 had held as under:
“We, however, may hasten to add that if “reason to
believe” of the Assessing Officer is founded on an information
which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
the completion of assessment, it may be a sound foundation for
exercising the power under section 147 read with section 148
of the Act.
We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jolly
to the effect that the impugned order of reassessment cannot be
faulted as the same was based on information derived from the
tax audit report. The tax audit report had already been
submitted by the assessee. It is one thing to say that the
Assessing Officer had received information from an audit
report which was not before the Income-tax Officer, but it is
another thing to say that such information can be derived by
the material which had been supplied by the assessee himself.
We also cannot accept the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect
that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons
have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on the
record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a
proceeding under section 147 of the Act. The said submission
is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in
terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or sub-section (3) of
section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in
terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption
can be raised that such an order has been passed on
application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section
114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have
been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has
been passed purportedly without application of mind would
itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen
the proceeding without anything further, the same would
amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-
judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong.”(Emphasis
supplied)
(j) The petitioner submitted that recently the Apex Court in the case of
ITO Vs. Techspan India Pvt limited, reported in 404 ITR 10, in para 12 has
held that there would be a change of opinion when either specifically or by
necessary implication a re-look is being made. In the instant case this is
where the respondent has attempted to.
“Before interfering with the proposed reopening of the
assessment on the ground that the same is based only on a
change in opinion, the court ought to verify whether the
assessment earlier made has either expressly or by necessary
implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the
basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. If
the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the assessing officer
any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed
reassessment proceedings. Every attempt to bring to tax,
income that has escaped assessment, cannot be absorbed by
judicial intervention on an assumed change of opinion even in
cases where the order of assessment does not address itself to
a given aspect sought to be examined in the reassessment
proceedings”.(Emphasis supplied)
(k) The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. ICICI
Securities Primary Dealership Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 299 at Pg.301 has
while upholding the judgment of Bombay High Court which reads as under:
“In the facts of the present case, there is nothing new
which has come to the notice of the Revenue. The accounts had
been furnished by the petitioner when called upon. Thereafter
the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the
Income Tax Act. Now, on a mere relook, the officer has come
to the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment and
he is of course justified in his analysis. In our view, this is not
something which is permissible under the proviso to Section
147 of the Income Tax Act which speaks about a failure on
the part of the assessee to make a proper return. In the
present case, no such case is made out on the record. In the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
circumstances, we allow this petition in terms of Prayer (a) and
quash and set aside the notice dated 27-3-2006 directing
reopening of the assessment for the year 1999-2000.
It thus held as under:
“Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The assessee had disclosed full details in the return of
income in the matter of its dealing in stocks and shares.
According to the assessee, the loss incurred was a business
loss, whereas, according to the Revenue, the loss incurred was
a speculative loss. Rejection of the objections of the assessee to
the re-opening of the assessment by the assessing officer vide
his order dated 23-6-2006, is clearly a change of opinion. In
the circumstances, we are of the view that the order re-opening
the assessment was not maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied)
(l) It is significant to be noted that their Lordships considered in its
judgment that where a petitioner had challenged the initiation of proceedings
u/s 148 of the Act and filed objections, the Assessing Officer was required
bylaw to consider such objections, to enable the Court to examine whether it
is a case of change of opinion or otherwise. It is submitted that if the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
aforesaid principles of law as laid down is complied, it is evident that an
order on objection deserves to be examined by the Court before expressing
its discretion under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
(m) It is submitted that there is difference between the concept of
inferential facts and material facts. It is submitted that in the instant case if
the reasons recorded as extracted above, are closely read, there has been no
failure on the part of the petitioner to have disclosed fully and truly all
material facts and the reassessment proceedings have been initiated merely
on a change of opinion as in the original proceedings, the respondents after
duly verifying all the facts had not drawn any negative inference with respect
to the production bonus paid by the petitioners.
(n) Reasons to believe has been formed on the basis of wrong
facts, as such assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law: It is submitted in
the present case, the petitioner had claimed a deduction of Rs.33,95,84,064/-
on account of production bonus, whereas in the reasons to believe, the
respondent is of the view that the petitioner was entitled to the deduction
only to the extent of Rs.20,32,78,482/- and thus, the assessee had claimed
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
excessive liability on bonus in the AY 2006-07 to the extent of
Rs.13,63,05,582/-. It is submitted that the petitioner in the objections as well
as in the present writ petition have provided the facts relating to the claim of
the production bonus. In fact, during the course of the assessment
proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, a specific query regarding the
claim of production bonus of Rs.33 crores as against the sum of Rs.10.67
crore debited in the profit and loss account was raised. The petitioner in
response to the aforesaid query filed its explanation and clarified the basis of
such claim. The respondents being satisfied by the explanation, and books of
account, accepted the aforesaid claim. As such, there is no failure to disclose
any material facts. In fact, proceedings have not even been initiated on the
ground that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose
fully and truly all material facts but has been initiated merely on the ground
that petitioner has been allowed excessive production bonus of
Rs.13,63,05,582/- and the same has escaped assessment. It is submitted that
while forming the reasons to believe, the respondents have committed factual
error, which has formed the basis of the assumption that excessive claim of
production bonus has been made. It is submitted that it has been assumed
that production bonus was claimed in AY 2004-05, whereas the fact of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
matter is that no amount was paid in AY 2004-05. It is submitted that
petitioner claimed, production bonus only on payment basis, and opening
balance of the instant AY was Rs.25,36,29,564/- and addition of production
bonus during the year was of Rs.9,21,14,449/- as such total production
bonus payable was of Rs.34,57,44,013/- and out of the said sum, a sum of
Rs.33,95,84,064/- was paid and remaining sum of Rs.61,59,949/- was
carried forward. It is submitted that if the fact that no production bonus was
paid in AY 2004-05, if had been correctly noted by the respondent, then he
would have been found that there was no escapement of the income. It is
submitted that this factual error had led the respondent to assume that there
was excessive claim of production bonus during the year. It is submitted that
such factual error has been demonstrated in the objections filed by the
petitioner, and same has not been even disputed by the respondent in the
order, disposing of the objections. It is submitted that if the reasons to
believe proceeds on the wrong facts, assumption of jurisdiction is
unsustainable in law as has been held in the following decisions:
i. Akshar Builders & Developers Vs. ACIT [2019] 411 ITR 602
(Bombay)
“6. It is thus emerges from the record that the Assessing
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
Officer has merely acted upon the information submitted to
him by the investigation wing that there is material to suggest
that Mudra had paid cash amount to AB&D whereas, the
material collected during the survey against Mudra prima
faice suggests such cash payment to AD. This would
demonstrate total lack of application of mind on the part of the
Assessing Officer. If he had perused the material supplied to
him by the investigation wing, he would have immediately
noticed that material referred would suggest cash payment to
AD and not AB&D i.e. the present petitioner.
7. Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee
is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the
Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment
provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot
proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that
may have been supplied to him. In fact, we note that in the
present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a
wrong person. The impugned notice is, therefore, set aside.”
ii. Ankita A.Choksey Vs. ITO W.P.3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019
HC (Bom)
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
“7. Thus, we are of the view that even in cases where the
return of income has been accepted by processing under
Section 143(1) of the Act, re-opening of an assessment can
only be done when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe
that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The
mere fact that the return has been processed under Section
143(1) of the Act, does not give the Assessing Officer a carte
blanc to issue a re-opening notice. The condition precedent of
reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped
assessment on correct facts, must be satisfied by the Assessing
Officer so as to have jurisdiction to issue the re-opening
notice. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has
proceeded on fundamentally wrong facts to come to the
reasonable belief conclusion that income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment. Further, even when the same is pointed
out by the Petitioner, the Assessing Officer in its order
disposing off the objection does not deal with factual position
asserted by the Petitioner. Thus, it would safe to conclude that
the Revenue does not dispute the facts stated by the Petitioner.
On the facts as found, there could be no reason for the
Assessing Officer to believe that income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
iii. Mumtaz Hazi Mohmad Memon Vs. ITO 408 ITR 268 (Guj)
“These reasons are interconnected and interwoven. In
fact, even if these reasons are seen as separate and severable
grounds, both being factually incorrect, Revenue simply
cannot hope to salvage the impugned notice.”
(o) There is no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts:
It is submitted that from the facts demonstrated above, that complete
facts has been disclosed. Further, on the basis of same facts reasons to
believe has been formed and there is no whisper much less any allegation
that income has escaped on account of failure on the part of the assessee to
disclose fully and truly all material facts, as such in view of first proviso to
section 147 of the Act assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to law. In
support, the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
i. New Delhi Television Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2020) 424 ITR 607 (SC)
“In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts
necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer.
What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full
and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view
that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts before the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
assessing officer and it was not required to give any further
assistance to the assessing officer by disclosure of other facts.
It was for the assessing officer at this stage to decide what
inference should be drawn from the facts of the case. In the
present case the assessing officer on the basis of the facts
disclosed to him did not doubt the genuiness of the transaction
set up by the assessee. This the assessing officer could have
done even at that stage on the basis of the facts which he
already knew. The other facts relied upon by the revenue are
the proceedings before the DRP and facts subsequent to the
assessment order, and we have already dealt with the same
while deciding Issue No. 1. However, that cannot lead to the
conclusion that there is non-disclosure of true and material
facts by the assessee.”
ii. Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd., Vs. ACIT Reported in [2018]
409 ITR 369 (Madras)
iii. S.P.Mani & Mohan Diary Vs. ACIT [2019] 418 ITR 703 (Madras)
iv. Bharti Infratel Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2019] 101 Taxmann.com 285
(Delhi)
v. CIT Vs. City Union Bank Ltd., [2019] 264 Taxman 204 (Mad)
(HC)
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
vi. PCIT Vs. L & T Ltd, [2020] 268 Taxman 390 (SC)
(p) The petitioner submitted that on identical facts in the case of
petitioner alone for the AY 2002-03 on identical reason, the Hon'ble Madras
High Court by its judgment dated 29.10.2011 (pg.32-43 of case law
compilation) had quashed the initiation of proceedings inter-alia on the
ground that there had been no omission or failure to disclose fully and truly
all material facts and otherwise too, the initiation of proceedings under
Section 147 of the Act was beyond jurisdiction. That further, if the issue has
been examined in the original assessment proceedings, then any error would
also not clothe the respondent to assume jurisdiction to initiate proceeding
under Section 147 of the Act. It has been held in the following judicial
pronouncement that any remissness, error or mistake does not clothe the
respondent to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act more
particularly in the case wherein the proceedings have been initiated beyond a
period of four years from the end of the assessment year.
i.CIT Vs. BhanjiLavji 79 ITR 582 (SC)
ii. Mohini Bai M.Sarda Vs. First ITO 190 ITR 541(Karnataka)
iii. Fenner India Limited. Vs. DCIT 241 ITR 672(Mad)
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
iv. CIT Vs. Indian Sugar & General Industries 303 ITR 155(Delhi)
v. Gordon Woodroffe & Co.Ltd., Vs. ITO 51 ITR 12(Mad)
vi. Gemini Leather Store. Vs. Income-Tax officer 100 ITR 1 (SC)
vii. Parashuram Pottery Works Co., Ltd. Vs. ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC)
viii. Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Income -Tax 370 ITR 771 (Delhi)
ix. Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society, Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, New Delhi – 119 ITR 996 (SC)
x. Chemicals and Fibres of India Limited vs. M.K.N.Pillai and another
146 ITR 280 (Bom)
xi. Addl.Commissioner of Incometax Vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand 154
ITR 274 (Rajasthan)
xii. ITO Vs. Sirpur Papers Mills Ltd., 113 ITR 393 (AP)
(q) The petitioner submitted that if the scope of provision of Section
147 are closely read, it is a classic case wherein respondent had proceeded to
assume jurisdiction without recording any reasons to believe, without
obtaining sanction, and has initiated the proceedings to make roving and
fishing enquiry or to re-investigate. In support of the contention that there
can be no assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 wherein the
respondent seeks to make roving and fishing enquiry, the petitioner seeks to
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
rely on the following judgments as are stated below:
(i) Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 Para 14 (P &H)
(ii) Assam Co., Limited Vs. UOI, 275 ITR 609, Para 41 (Gau.)
(iii) I.B.M World Trade Corporation Vs. N.D.Bhatt, IAC, 138 ITR
742 (Bom)
(iv) Y.Rajan Vs. ITO, 77 ITR 839 (AP)
(v) CIT Vs. M.P.Iron Traders, 189 CTR 154 (P & H)
(r) Thus, the five judgments of the Supreme Court i.e., Calcutta
Discount Co., Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in 41 ITR 191, CIT Vs. Kelvinator
of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 and ACIT Vs. ICICI Securities Primary
dealership Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 299, New Delhi Television Ltd., Vs.
DCIT (2020) 424 ITR 607 and ITO vs. Techspan India Pvt Ltd., reported
in 404 ITR 10 are sufficient to establish and beyond doubt that in the instant
case jurisdiction has been assumed without authority of law and is in excess
of jurisdiction of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that in the instant
case, for the reasons stated above as there is a complete lack of jurisdiction,
it is not the requirement of law that once the respondent had issued a notice
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
under Section 148 of the Act, he was in law obliged to frame assessment
before he culminate the proceeding. In fact, he ought to have dropped the
proceeding instead of having chosen to continue with the proceedings.
6. The learned Senior Standing counsel objected the said contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the judgments relied on by
the petitioners cannot be disputed. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India laid down the principles on all these aspects. However, the
application of the principles with reference to the facts and circumstances of
the petitioner's case is to be considered by this Court. The learned Senior
Standing counsel reiterated that in the case of the petitioner, the Assessing
Officer has 'reason to believe', in view of the fact that the income chargeable
to tax escaped assessment. The conditions stipulated in the Proviso clause to
Section 147 is also complied with and thus, the petitioner has to participate
in the reopening proceedings. The learned Senior Standing counsel relied on
the reasons recorded for reopening and the findings of the authority
competent, while disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner. Relying
on the said reasons as well as the disposal of objections, the learned Senior
Standing counsel reiterated that the case of the petitioner is falling under the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
proviso clause to Section 147 of the Act and mere production of books of
accounts and material evidences are insufficient and thus, the respondent
must be allowed to proceed with the reopening proceedings.
7. Considering the arguments as advanced on behalf of the parties to
the lis, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2012. The
respondents have stated that they have 'reason to believe' that income
chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2006-07 has escaped assessment
within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Request is made to furnish
reasons. Reasons are furnished in proceedings dated 08.10.2012 and in the
present case, the reopening is made, in view of the fact that the reopening of
assessment is made in respect of the very same petitioner company for the
Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and therefore, the implications on
tangible material continued for further reopening of proceedings for the
Assessment Year 2006-07 also. Thus, it is clear that once the reopening is
made for the Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, it necessitated the
authorities for reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07
also as they have 'reason to believe' that the income chargeable to tax
escaped assessment. In this regard, the learned Senior Standing counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
relied on the judgment of Kalyanji Mavji & Co., Vs. CIT [1976] 102 ITR
287 (SC).
8. Let us consider the reasons for reopening of assessment.
“The assessee is a foreign company engaged in the
business of oil exploration. For the AY 2006-07, in the scrutiny
assessment completed u/s 143(3), the total income of the
assessee was determined at a loss of Rs.23,07,81,802/-.
However, the books profit of Rs.197,41,29,836 was taxed
u/s.115JB.
In the Profit & Loss Account for the year ended March
31, 2006, under Operating Expenses, the assessee debited a
sum of Rs.10,67,96,247/- towards production bonus.
According to the assessee, the detail of production bonus was
as under:-
Name of the Party Amount Rs.
ONGC (for Ravva blocks) 9,21,14,449
Tata Pettrodyne Limited (CB- 1,46,81,798
OS/2 Block)
Total 10,67,96,247
In the statement of computation of income for the AY
2006-07, against the profit as per the Profit & Loss Account,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
the assessee, interalia, made the following additions and
deduction towards bonus with narrations as under:
Add: In admissible
Production bonus for the year admissible on payment basis
as per clause 17.5(b) of the Ravva Production sharing
Contract : Rs.9,21,14,449
Less: Admissible Expenses
Ravva production bonus paid during the year claimed
as per clause 17.5 (b) of the Ravva production sharing
Contract : Rs.33,95,84,064
A review of the assessment records of the assessee for
the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 revealed that for
the AY 2004-05 the assessee had claimed the entire liability on
bonus payable in the relevant assessment year itself. For the
AY 2005-06, the assessee did debit an expenditure of
Rs.12,14,24,477 in the Profit & Loss Account towards bonus.
In the statement of computation of income, of the total
expenditure of Rs.12,14,24,477 a sum of Rs.11,11,64,033
being the liability on bonus which remained un discharged as
on 31.03.2005 was added to the book profit as inadmissible. It
was noticed that on payment basis, in accordance with section
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
43b(c), the assessee had not claimed deduction on the
disbursement of bonus in AY 2005-06. So, the undischarged
liability relating to production bonus for the AY 20005-06,
which was to be carried forward for claim in AY 2006-07 was
Rs.11,11,64,033 only. Whereas, it is seen that the assessee had
claimed excessive liability on bonus in the AY 2006-07 to the
extent of Rs.13,63,05,582 as worked out below:
Production bonus claimed as admissible expenses
In statement of income : Rs.33,95,84,064
Less: Liability of AY 2005-06
: Rs.11,11,64,033
Current year liability
(AY 2006-07)
(discharged before filing
of return : Rs.9,21,14,449 :Rs.20,32,78,482
--------------------
Excess claim of production bonus Rs.13,63,05,582
The above fact leads to the belief that income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the AY 2006-
07.”
9. The objections filed by the petitioners were considered by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
respondents and order is passed, rejecting the objections. The findings of the
respondents in impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2013 would reveal that
the objections raised by the petitioner and the case was relied upon by them
were considered and they have made a finding in Paragraphs 4.3 & 4.4
which reads as follows:
“4.3 Section 147 of the Income Tax Act requires that
there is reason to believe that the income has escaped
assessment. There is no question of sufficient or insufficient
reason to believe but only the existence of reason to believe
that income has escaped assessment as per facts on record and
as per provisions of IT Act 1961. The belief can be verified,
ascertained and confirmed only after verifying various
details/factors during the assessment proceedings.
4.4 As regards the change of opinion, it is submitted that
the change of opinion arises when the assessing officer forms
an opinion that decides not to make an addition and holds that
the assessee is correct. The reassessment proceedings under
section 147 is pending and the issue can be examined during
the course of proceedings only. The submission of the assessee
company is incorrect and misleading. This view is supported
by the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Dalmia Pvt
Ltd., Vs. CIT in which the court has held that “despite specific
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
and pointed queries in section 143(3) assessment, the
Assessing officer cannot be said to have formed any opinion if
explicit opinion not recorded.”
10. In view of the fact that the competent authority made a finding
that the submission of the assessee company is incorrect and misleading, the
case of the petitioner falls under the proviso clause to Section 147 of the Act
as the conditions that the assessee must disclose fully and truly is not
satisfied.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that based on the return of
income filed by the petitioner / assessee, the assessment order has been
passed and subsequently certain new tangible materials were traced out for
the purpose of reopening as the Assessing Officer has ‘reason to believe’ that
income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Under these
circumstances, the assessee cannot say that he has produced all the material
facts and books of accounts etc., Even if such materials are produced, if the
authorities formed an opinion that the tax escaped assessment, then they are
empowered to initiate reopening proceedings. In the present case, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
assessment is reopened beyond a period of four years, but within a period of
six years and therefore, mere availability of tangible material would be
sufficient for the purpose of invoking the powers under Section 147 of the
Act. This failure on the part of the petitioner was considered for reopening of
assessment and the finding is given that the assessee company has
misleading the assessing authorities by furnishing incorrect particulars.
However, this Court cannot arrive a finding in this regard. It is for the
assessee to establish his case during the course of reassessment proceedings.
The writ petition is filed, challenging the reopening proceedings. Thus,
objective satisfaction would be sufficient for the purpose of allowing the
Assessing authority to proceed with the reopening proceedings. Once, the
materials are available and such materials were not taken into consideration
by the original assessing authority, or any findings are given in the
assessment order, which would be sufficient for the purpose of reopening of
assessment and once such reopening is made based on tangible materials,
then the assessee has to defend his case by furnishing further particulars or
explanations or documents during the course of reopening proceedings. High
Court cannot form any opinion in respect of such findings to be made. Only
endeavour of the High Court is to ensure that, whether the conditions
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
stipulated and the process adopted for the purpose of reopening of
assessment in consonance with the provisions of the Act and in accordance
with the Directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
GKN Driveshafts (cited supra) are not. If the conditions are fulfilled, then it
is for the assessee to defend their case in the manner known to law.
12. As discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the reasons
furnished in the case of the petitioner would be sufficient for the purpose of
reopening of assessment as the case of the petitioner is initiated beyond a
period of four years, but within a period of six years and therefore, the
petitioner is bound to participate in the reopening proceedings for the
purpose of defending their case by availing the opportunities to be provided
by the authorities in accordance with law.
13. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
01.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
Kak
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
To
Deputy Director of Income Tax-I,
(International Taxation)
Room No.703, IInd Floor,
Annexe Building, Aaykar Bhawan,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kak
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.12358 of 2013
01.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
