TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the objections filed by the petitioner against the issuance of the notice under Section 148 as also the notices dated 9-12-2010 issued under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents restraining them from carrying out assessment/re-assessment of the assessment order dated 16-2-2006 for the assessment year 2003-2004. According to the petitioner, the petitioner company is a foreign company and is engaged in the business in connection with extracting, prospecting and production of mineral oil. The petitioner filed its return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 on 31-3-2005 thereby declaring a total income of ₹ 25,877, 736/- under Section 44 BB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.[2002] 256 ITR 1] and the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010]320 ITR 561 (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that the change of opinion is not permissible even if it is within four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the Income-tax Officer had all the material facts before him when he had framed the original assessment, he could not take recourse to Section 147 (a) of the Act to correct the error resulting from his own oversight and that change of opinion cannot clothe the assessing officer with the jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. In support of his contention, learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o enactment of the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment)Act, 1987 i.e. prior to 1-4-1989, while the case at hand pertains to Assessment Year 2003-2004. I have perused the judgment rendered by Full Bench of Delhi High Court as well as the Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator of India (supra). In that case, the Apex Court has also discussed the amendments made after 1-4-1989 and according to the learned counsel for the revenue, the scope after the amendment is wider. I have also gone through judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. O.N.G.C. (supra). This judgment is not on the issue of change of opinion. The Division Bench has considered the recitals and various clauses of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
