October 2019

ACIT-2(3) vs. M/s Tata Sons Ltd.; date of order: 9th December, 2015; [ITA. No. 1719/Mum/2012, A.Y.: 2004-05; Mum. ITAT]

Ajay R. Singh
Advocate

3.       The Pr. CIT-2 vs. M/s Tata Sons Ltd. [Income tax Appeal No. 639 of 2017] Date of order: 19th August, 2019 (Bombay High Court)

 

ACIT-2(3) vs. M/s Tata Sons Ltd.; date of order: 9th December, 2015; [ITA. No. 1719/Mum/2012, A.Y.: 2004-05; Mum. ITAT]

 

Section 147 – Reassessment – The reopening notice was issued before the reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment – Reopening notice is bad in law [S. 148]

 

On 6th March, 2009 the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act seeking to re-open the assessment. The assessee company contended that the reopening notice was issued much before the reasons for doing so were recorded, thus the reopening notice was without jurisdiction. However, the AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and passed an order of assessment u/s 143(3) r/w/s 148 of the Act.

 

Being aggrieved with the order, the assessee company carried the issue in appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the reopening notice had been issued without having recorded the reasons which might have led the AO to form a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The reasons were recorded on 19th March, 2009 while the impugned notice issued is dated 6th March, 2009. The CIT(A) held that the entire proceeding of reopening is vitiated as notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law.

 

Aggrieved with this, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal specifically asked the Revenue to produce the assessment record so as to substantiate its case that

--->

Keywords Search
Flip-Book Search
HTML View Search
Current Issue