TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 0.5% of average value of investment for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. It is by now well settled that the assessment cannot be reopened merely on the basis of an audit report without the Assessing Officer independently forming the belief, may be on the basis of such report, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The above referred decision would, therefore, be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned notice issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Act being based merely upon the audit objection and not because the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. - R/Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act were raised vide notice dated 02.03.2015, which came to be replied vide letter dated 10.03.2015. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.03.2015, the assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) making several additions and disallowance, including disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. Thereafter, by the impugned notice, the respondent sought to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2012- 13. At the request of the petitioner, the reasons came to be furnished. The petitioner raised various objections on merits requesting the respondent to drop the reassessment. Vide order dated 20.8.2018, the respondent rejected the objections. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground of such reopening of assessment being at the instance of audit party. In the facts of the said case, the court noted that the assessment was completed on scrutiny. In the postassessment period, the audit party raised the objection and the Assessing Officer had strongly objected to such objections by communicating internally. The court held that the facts clearly established the absence of subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and accepted the ground raised by the petitioner that such notice of reopening was invalid as the Assessing Officer had not formed his independent belief. 7. Opposing the petition, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent reiterated the grounds set out in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case clearly reveals that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the objections raised by the audit party and on the contrary, has objected to such objections by communicating internally as referred to hereinabove. Evidently therefore, the Assessing Officer has not formed any independent belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and on the contrary has stated that he had considered the applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act and was satisfied in adopting 0.5% of average value of investment for disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Evidently, therefore, the notice under section 148 of the Act has merely been issued on the basis of the audit objection without the Assessing Officer having formed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
