9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is carrying on agricultural activities to develop and cultivate seeds which are then subjected to processes such as cleaning, drying, sorting, conditioning treatment and packing. The Petitioner claims to have been producing and marketing high-yielding hybrid seeds. 3. For the AY in question, the Assessee filed its return of income on 30th September, 2009 declaring an income of Rs. 9,96,09,675. The return was picked up for scrutiny and an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15th February, 2013 assessing the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 129,67,68,810. 4.On 1st March, 2013, the Petitioner filed an application before the AO under Section 154 of the Act, for rectification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order dated 4th March 2013, allowing the plea of the Petitioner with regard to the additions made on account of closing stock, as under: "7. Allowability of addition made on account of closing stock It was stated by the company that there has been a change in accounting policy of the company and the it had included parent seeds cost in valuation of its closing stock .Thus the company should be allowed a deduction of Rs. 14,29,95,311/- being closing stock of AY 2008-09 and the addition made during AY 2009-10 of Rs. 7,33,48,340/- needs to be deleted. The claim of the company was verified from its books of accounts and found to be correct. Accordingly it needs to be allowed a deduction of Rs. 142995311/- and addition of Rs. 7,33,48,340/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved as under: "7. The applicant/petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment order made without rejecting its objections to the notice dated 09.03.2016. It is submitted that the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished on 07.11.2016, after which it lodged its objections on 16.11.2016. The Assessment Officer did not pass any separate order but instead proceeded to conclude the reassessment on 31.12.2016. 8. The Court has considered the "reasons to believe" forming the basis for reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Prima facie they do not disclose any tangible material and are rather premised upon the calculation claim made by the assessee/petitioner in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact, the AO himself acknowledged the mistake of overlooking that note. He, therefore, accepted the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Act and rectified the assessment order by the subsequent order dated 4th March, 2013. These facts have been completely overlooked by the AO while seeking to reopen the assessment. The observation that the Assessee did not make a disclosure of the changed method of valuation is plainly contrary to the records. On the face of it, the reopening is unsustainable in law. 15. There is another question urged by the Petitioner regarding the failure of the AO to comply with the procedure explained by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer 259 ITR 19 is left ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
