TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. This writ petition by Indus Towers Limited ( ITL ) challenges a notice dated 22nd February, 2013 issued to the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), New Delhi ( DCIT ) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2009-10. It also seeks to challenge the order dated 20th January, 2014 passed by the DCIT disposing of the objections by the Petitioner to the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act by the aforementioned notice. The consequent assessment proceedings are also sought to be quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Infratel Ventures Ltd. ( BIVL ) filed a scheme of arrangement (merger) on 31st May, 2011 before this Court for transfer of all the tower companies to the Petitioner herein i.e., Indus Tower Limited ( ITL ) with effect from 1st April, 2009. 7. On 22nd February 2013, the AO i.e., Respondent No.1 herein issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to ICTIL for re-opening the assessment for AY 2009-10, which already stood concluded by the order under Section 143(1) of the Act, requiring ICTIL to file its return of income within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Among the reasons for re-opening was the receipt of capital assets by ICTIL on nil consideration from ICL. It was further stated therein that the demerger approved by the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court were submitted. Therefore, the alleged formation of belief by the AO of income having escaped assessment is a mere change of opinion and an afterthought without any legal basis. The proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material and, therefore, assumption of jurisdiction was plainly unsustainable in law. (ii) In terms of the proviso to Section 153(1), the time limit for completion of the assessment for AY 2009-10 was 31st December, 2011 (21 months from the month of the AY). Further, the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act requires that notice for assessment should be issued within six months from the end of the Financial Year ( FY ) in which the return was furnished by an Assessee. In the present case, the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) reiterated in CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del) and Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Del). In the last mentioned judgment, this Court held that the delay in issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would be fatal to the re-assessment proceedings. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that as far as the second ground is concerned, the Petitioner should succeed. In that view of the matter, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the first ground of challenge. 16. The impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2013 issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
