TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing year. Infact this has been accepted in the order dated 16th November 2019 rejecting petitioner's objections, which order is also impugned in this petition. The JAO, though he admits that he has erred, states that that issue of difference is not of prime relevance or contention is not of relevance at this stage. When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. As held in 3i Infotech Limited [ 2010 (6) TMI 372 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with RBIIPL and Paras for acquiring their personal care business. RBIIPL, Paras and petitioner came to an understanding by which RBIIPL would merge with Paras and after the merger, the personal care division of the merged entity to be demerged into petitioner. Parties approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Court vide its order dated 18th April 2012 approved the scheme by which the entire business including all assets, liabilities and reserves relating to the personal care division of merged entity of RBIIPL and Paras was vested in petitioner with effect from the appointed date being 1st March 2012. 4. Petitioner filed its return of income on 6th February 2013 for Assessment Year 2012-2013 as mentioned earlier de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 85,58,620/-. Petitioner responded vide a detailed letter dated 9th October 2017. Nothing happened thereafter. 7. One fine day, petitioner received a notice dated 30th March 2019 under Section 148 of the said Act, which is impugned in this petition. Later, petitioner also received reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. We have, with the assistance of Mr. Joshi and Mr. Suresh Kumar, considered the reasons for reopening. In our view, first of all, the reasons recorded only indicate a change of opinion by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) based on the same set of facts and documents. Moreover, the JAO has proceeded on the incorrect premise that the amount of provision for sales return as the expenditure incurred was not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Punjab and Haryana High Court has endorsed it by approving the Scheme of Amalgamation in its order dated 18th April 2012 because the order was passed only on 18th April 2012, the effective date cannot be 1st March 2012. Infact the JAO has sat on appeal over the High Court's order and has gone to the extent of saying that the High Court's order on amalgamation was irregular. Mr. Suresh Kumar was visibly embarrassed by this statement and at his request and in view of the fact that the JAO has accepted that there was an error in the order dated 16th November 2019 impugned in this petition, we will leave the matter to rest at this point. 9. Moreover, in any event, all the points, which have been raised in the reasons for reopening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed irregular expenditure in its accounts after amalgamation process. 11. Since the notice under Section 148 of the said Act has been issued after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year and scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) has been passed, the proviso to Section 147 of the said Act applies. The onus is on respondents to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts at the time of assessment. The reasons recorded does not even contain a whisper as to what were the facts which were material and that were not disclosed truly and fully. 12. Mr. Suresh Kumar relied upon a judgment of this Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under : (a) that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2019, being Ex.H hereto and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned notice dated 30th March 2019 being Ex.H hereto and the order rejecting the petitioner s objections dated 16th November 2019, being Ex.K hereto. 15. Petition disposed with no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
