TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment – Relying upon CIT V. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the explanations by the assessee appear to have been taken into account - A virtual assertion of the same reasons in different words does not clothe the reassessment notice with any more sanctity, nor does it take away the vice of lack of jurisdiction - an assessment cannot be reopened merely to verify the genuineness of the expenses as that would amount to an impermissible fishing or rowing enquiry without any tangible material to show escapement of income – the notice is no justified and is beyond the authority of law – Decided in favour of Assessee. - W. P. (C) 7550/2012 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceedings the assessee had earnings of Rs.1,31,10,67,825/- and the assessee offered income from services in P L A/c at Rs.21,03,01,532/-. being not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee the Assessing officer made a disallowance of Rs.114,29,03,442/- the assessee filed writ petition against the said order before the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court quest the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and also has held that the reasons for reopening have to stand on their legs and cannot be substantiate for reasons and grounds which are not mentioned therein. The Hon ble Court further commented that we will only state that this order does not and will not operate as a bar or prohibition. It is opened to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead services . The Court in those writ proceedings was of the opinion that since all the materials were on the record, on an appropriate application of the Supreme Court s ruling in CIT V. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723, the earlier reassessment notice was not justified. The court accordingly quashed the reassessment notice. At the same time the Court observed that the order would not operate as a bar or prohibition and fresh reasons for the reopening assessment for 2006-07 may be recorded in accordance with law. 3. It is submitted that the present impugned reassessment notice dated 4.7.2011 is on the same lines which led the Court to quash the previous one. It is urged that there is no fresh or tangible material to trigger a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. 5. In the present case the reasons to believe extracted above nowhere reveal as to what tangible material which the AO came to obtain to justify the reassessment notice. In the previous instance, the reassessment notice was based on the assumption that a much larger income had accrued to the assessee whereas only a fraction of its was offered in the P L account. In the present case, a somewhat similar, if not identical, ground has been made out i.e. that of expenses incurred abroad have not been revealed. This was an aspect which was known to the AO at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
