9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is regularly assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring income of Rs.92.81 crores (rounded off). The petitioner thereafter filed a revised return of income of Rs.92.60 crores (rounded off). 3. The case of the petitioner was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) on 28.3.2003 determining total income at Rs.112.47 crores (rounded off). The assessment was thereafter reopened on two occasions and such fresh assessments were also framed on 31.3.2005 and 29.12.2006. 4. By the impugned notice, the Assessing Officer seeks to reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the above addition. Department has filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT wherein the decision is pending till date. Meanwhile, the case was reopened u/s 147 for both the years, and following the order of Ld. CIT (A), netting benefit was allowed to the assessee in calculations. These orders u/s 147 were audited by the Revenue Audit Party wherein it was objected that the benefit of netting should not have been allowed to the assessee as Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rani Paliwal v. CIT, [2003] (185) CTR 333) (P&H) had decided in favour of revenue, and that this decision had come after the decision of Ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, and as per instruction No.09 of 2006 dated 07.11.2006 of CBDT, remedial action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 234B of the Act has since been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tulsyan Nec Ltd., 330 ITR 226. 9. Counsel further submitted that even otherwise, the sole reason for reopening the assessment was an objection raised by the audit party. This by itself would not form sufficient ground for reopening the assessment. 10. With respect to second issue raised by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, counsel submitted that this question also was discussed in the original assessment order. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) ruled in favour of the assessee. In that view of the matter, reopening on such an issue also was wholly impermissible. Counsel submitted that merely because subsequently a particular vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramed in case of the petitioner for the same assessment year. With respect to the first issue, namely, giving benefit of MAT credit to the assessee, the final decision was in favour of the assessee. 15. The CIT (Appeals) in an order under section 154 of the Act, ruled in favour of the assessee. Such decision, though was carried by the revenue before the Tribunal, the view of the CIT (Appeals) was confirmed. 16. Thus, in addition to no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose full facts, even on merits, this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal. Surely, when the Tribunal had already rendered its decision on a particular issue, the Assessing Officer could not have taken a different view, unless of course such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
