TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough these appeals have been admitted to consider the questions raised by the Revenue in the memorandum of appeals, after hearing Shri T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee and Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel, in our considered opinion, only question that arise for our consideration is: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the reassessment orders passed for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by erroneously holding that the said reassessment order is bad in law as the reopening is under section 147 is initiated beyond 4 years by relying on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Multiserium Media Pvt.Ltd.?" 3. Brief fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order and it has also not considered the allegations contained in the 'reasons recorded' in the file. With these submissions, he prayed for allowing these appeals. 8. Shri T. Suryanarayana, contended that when a notice under Section 148 of IT Act is issued the assessee is required to file returns and may seek for the reasons recorded in the file. The reasons communicated by the AO ought to disclose what is recorded in the file. In the instant case, a notice was issued for the first time under Section 148 of the IT Act on 21.03.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. Upon filing the returns, the AO has dropped the proceedings. The said notice was issued within four years from the date of completion of the assessment. The notice dated 25.03.2013 for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elieve that the income chargeable to tax had escaped and that sentence is missing in the reasons communicated. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 13. The question in this case is whether reopening the assessment initiated beyond four years is bad in law? 14. In Hindustan Lever Limited, it is held that the reasons have to be read as they are recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion ips permissible and no additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on the reasons not recorded and the reasons cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submissions. This view has been consistently followed by this Court in several cases. 15. The AO ha....