9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1992-93, the petitioner had filed its return of income on October 30, 1992, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,77,630. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 5,03,260. Against the said assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who, vide order dated November 15, 1995, allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the impugned notice dated January 12, 2001, came to be served upon the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93, which has given rise to the present petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner as averred in the petition that the impugned noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the end of the relevant assessment year without there being any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts, there is no averment in the entire affidavit-in-reply dealing with the said contention. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is further stated that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 438 (SC) and in the case of the Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 229 (Guj), the assessment made earlier needs to be reexamined to give effect to the ratio laid down therein since the decisions were not there at the time of making the original assessment. 5. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was submitted that in any case, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 438 (SC) which forms the basis for reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer, has subsequently been overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka State Co operative Apex Bank [2001] 251 ITR 194 (SC), wherein the court has held that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Bank Ltd. [1996] 218 ITR 438 (SC), does not set down the correct law. It was accordingly urged that even on the merits, the reopening of the assessment is not sustainable. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate, appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the main basis for reopening the assessment is a subsequent decision dated November 29, 2000 of this High Court in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT rendered in Income-tax Reference Nos. 48 and 49 of 1999 ([2001] 250 ITR 229 (Guj)) and Tax Appeals Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of 1999 in the entire reasons recorded as well as in the entire affidavit-in-reply, there is no whisper of there being any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration. A perusal of the reasons recorded makes it amply clear that the sole basis for reopening the assessment is the subsequent decision of this High Court in the case of Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
