2018 (4) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the question of law is also the same in all these three matters, we find it just and convenient to dispose of them by way of a common order. 2. Facts stated, in brief, are that the assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing textiles related yarns. For the Asstt. Years 2004-05 and 2007-08, they have filed the returns of income - showing nil income for the Asstt. Year 2004-05 after setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation; and declaring a loss of Rs. 186,07,08,869/- under the normal provisions of the Act for the Asstt. Year 2007-08. Assessment was complete in respect of both the years. Subsequently, by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act, learned AO initiated re-assessment proceedings. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to provision for deferred tax liability was wrongly allowed to the assessee because Finance Bill 2008 through which provisions of Section 115JB are amended. Learned CIT(A) on this aspect placed reliance on the decision reported in M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs DCIT, 297 ITR 119(Bom); and Rallis India Ltd. vs ASCIT, 323 ITR 54 (Bom) to hold that the retrospective amendment to section 115JB of the Act had not been effected when the impugned notice was served upon the assessee and therefore, the same could not have formed basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings. In M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble High Court held that,- "11. Moreover, when the assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment by relying on a decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the provision for deferred taxation cannot be treated as an unascertained liability was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Apart from that the Kolkata Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. has taken similar view. Neither the reasons recorded while reopening the assessment nor the reasons recorded while rejecting the objections raised by the assessee indicate any reason as to why the regular assessment is wrong or the decision of the Kolkata Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. is not acceptable. 13. In these circumstances, in our opinion, in the present case, since the jurisdictional requirements for reopening of the assessment are not fulfilled, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft (India) Limited v. ITO (supra). The decision of this Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) reiterates that the it is mandatory for the AO to supply reasons for reopening the assessment and this has to be done within a reasonable time. It was further observed by this Court as under: ".... a notice under Section 148 without the communication of the reasons therefore is meaningless inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. In a case, where the notice has been issued within the said period of six years, but the reasons have not furnished within that period, in our view, any proceedings pursuant thereto would be hit by the bar of limitation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not any ensures reopening notices are not lightly issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/misconception, the Assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not warrant reopening before the reassessment proceedings are commenced. The Assessing Officer disposes of these objections and if satisfied with the objections, then the impugned reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act is dropped/withdrawn otherwise it is proceeded with further. In issues such as this, i.e., where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can a....