TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of assessment. The learned Judge also, directed the respondent to pass re-assessment order, in accordance with law. Having regard to the above stated position, this court, in order to provide an opportunity to the appellant and also in the interest of justice, is inclined to set aside the order of the learned Judge in the writ petition as well as the order of the respondent rejecting the objection filed by the appellant for reopening the assessment and are acco6rdingly set aside, in the following terms: (i) The appellant is directed to submit all the material evidence along with additional objection meeting out the proposal raised by the respondent/Assessing Authority for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunicated to the appellant by a letter dated 05.03.2010. In response, the appellant submitted a letter dated 03.05.2010 objecting to the reopening of the assessment by stating that the reasons adduced for reopening the assessment are vague and not proper. In the objections submitted by the appellant, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Fenner India Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 241 ITR 672. The objections so raised by the appellant were considered and rejected by the respondent by an order dated 15.12.2010. Assailing the order of rejection dated 15.12.2010 of the respondent, the appellant has filed the writ petition before the learned Judge. 3. The learned Judge dismissed the writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.10 crores made to M/s. Atlas Copco India Limited towards non-compete fee and it was duly reflected in the profit and loss account. Subsequently, during the Assessment year 2005-2006, the appellant received Rs.15 crores from the said company towards cancellation of non-compete agreement, which was treated as income in the profit and loss account. The respondent also sent a questionnaire on 25.08.2004 with respect to the issue of non-compete fees paid to M/s. Atlas Copco and the appellant also furnished all the documentary evidence by way of a reply dated 25.01.2005. The assessing officer, after detailed examination, completed the assessment on 28.03.2005 by accepting the payment made as revenue expenditure. While so, after a period of four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the appellant-assesee and it warrants re-assessment. In other words, it was clearly stated that the assessee has not disclosed the true intention behind clause 2.4 of the agreement he had entered into with his associate company at abroad. Therefore, it was stated that there was a false assertion or statement of material fact made by the appellant-assessee, which requires re-assessment. The learned Judge, on appreciation of the order dated 15.12.2010 of the respondent has refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the order dated 15.12.2010 and directed the respondent to pass final order of re-assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The learned counsel therefore submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
