TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 quashed - 9180/2007 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2009 - A. K. SIKRI and VALMIKI J.MEHTA, JJ. W.P(C) No. 9180/2007 CM No. 17282/2007 Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. P.L.Bansal, Advocate for the Respondents. JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. - The petitioner by way of this writ petition has sought the quashing of the notice dated 29.1.2007 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and by which notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has sought to re-open the assessment with respect to the assessment year 2002-2003. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in a business of manufacturing and export of footwear. For the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 80-HHC and 80-IB. In the last para of the note, it was specifically stated that where there are two reliefs, each relief under a different section, then, the relief should be calculated independently subject only to the condition that aggregate of both the reliefs should not exceed the income of the undertaking. Other portion in the note shows the claim of the assessee to get a double deduction under both the heads and that calculation of relief has to be done independently. 5. An assessment order was thereafter passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.3.2005. The assessee thereafter received the impugned notice dated 29.1.2007 under Section 148 of the Act. On receipt of the notice under Section 148, the assessee company applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the notice and the reasons given for re-opening of the assessment merely reflect a change of opinion, and a mere change of opinion is not sufficient for issuing the notice under Section 148. The counsel has further referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue in this Court in which it has been clearly stated that objection was raised by the Revenue Audit Party with regard to allowing of the deduction under Section 80-IA and 80-HHC i.e. after the assessee was allowed deduction of Rs. 70.70 lakhs under Section 80-IA but the said amount was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under Section 80-HHC, and therefore the mistake has resulted in the incorrect allowance of deduction of Rs. 49.08 lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to the non-availability of the deduction both under Section 80-IA and under Section 80-HHC and that the deduction under Section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under Section 80-HHC. Clearly, therefore, there was no new or fresh material before the Assessing Officer except the opinion of the Revenue Audit Party. 10. Since it is settled law that mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for issuing of a notice under Section 147/148 of the Act, therefore, we do not propose to burden our judgment with the said judgments. In fact, as stated above, the counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this principle of law. 11. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
