TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner. J. Narayanasamy for Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the Respondents. JUDGMENT K.CHANDRU J. - 1. Heard the arguments of Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. Narayanasamy representing Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused the records. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 17.7.2007 wherein and by which notice was given to reopen the assessment for the year 2000-2001. It is stated in the impugned order that they had received information from the Enforcement Directorate through proper channel which shows possible inflation of purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer and in the absence of any credible materials, there was no question of reopening the assessment contrary to the ingredients of Section 147 of the I.T. Act. Further, the notice is also barred by limitation. According to the petitioners, since there is a jurisdictional error, they are entitled to approach this Court to challenge the same without availing any remedy provided under the Act. 4. An additional affidavit dated 01.9.2007 was also filed by them stating that the copy of the order obtaining previous sanction by Commissioner of Income Tax was not provided as required under Section 151 of the Act and it is mandatory to have the prior sanction. 5. Interim stay was granted on 14.9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to drive home the very same point. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in (2007) 290 ITR 0583 [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chamundeswari]. Unless a fresh information is available with the Assessing Officer, he cannot invoke the power under Section 147(b) of the I.T. Act and consequently, reassessing the assessment. It is not clear as to how the above said judgments will be of any assistance to the petitioner. 9. The facts of the present case is totally different. In the present case, the definite stand of the Department is that previous sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained and credible information received relates to the year 2000-2001. It was also stated that an adjudication order dated 22.8.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
