9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies Act and has established an undertaking in Software Technology Park of India. The petitioner claims to be exporting computer software. For the assessment years 2002-2003 to 20072008, the petitioner had claimed deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act. From the year 2008-2009, the petitioner claimed under section 10A of the Act. For the assessment year 2010-2011 also, such claim was made in the return filed by the assessee. On 25.9.2010, such return was accepted under section1 43(1) of the Act without scrutiny. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice. In order to do so, he has recorded the following reasons : "The assessee filed its return of income for AY 201011 on 25/9/2010 declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o believe that income of Rs. 21740010/has escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee, it is a fit case for initiating action u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act." 3. The petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening under communication dated 14.10.2017. Such objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer on 3.11.2017. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel Shri J.P. Shah for the petitioner raised the following two grounds in support of the challenge of the petitioner. His first contention was that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on erroneous footing when he has recorded that issue is pending before the High Court. He submitted that the reasons are the basis for issuance of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) in both cases did allow the assessee's appeal upon which the Revenue had filed the appeals before the Tribunal and such appeals were pending when the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons and issued the impugned notice for reopening. 7. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC), in case where the original assessment is not framed after scrutiny, Assessing Officer cannot be stated to have formed any opinion and therefore, the concept of change of opinion would not apply. It is undisputedly true that despite such wider latitude available to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, the requirement that he had reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
