Rajan chawla apex forex consultants pvt ltd
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reopening of the rajan chawla apex forex consultants pvt ltd particularly when the assessment was reopened within a period of four years from the end of the assessment year? Mody, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent at the very outset point that the issue raised herein namely can a reopening be issued notice by the Assessing Officer on the very ground which he had opposed in response to the query from the Audit is no longer res integra. Chhotatry, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in the present case facts are completely distinguishable. Therefore, according to him, the aforesaid decisions will not govern this particular case.
The reasons recorded do not indicate that the same has been issued on the basis of audit objection. Therefore as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Wadkar 268 ITR 332, one cannot go behind the reasons recorded in support of the notice to infer that he has acted on the basis of audit objection. The response of non-acceptance by the Assessing Officer to the audit objection was in October 2007.
It was almost one and half years thereafter i. 19th March 2009 that the reopening notice was issued. Therefore, it is possible for the Assessing Officer to have changed his mind in the interregnum and come to the conclusion that his earlier opposition to the audit objection was not justified. In support he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in A. The decision of the Apex Court in Liberty India v.
Revenue with regards to the merits of the issue viz. The reasons as recorded by the Assessing Officer it is submitted by the Revenue nowhere indicates that it was issued by the Assessing Officer on account of the audit objection. This is completely different from the present facts where an Assessee points out that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are not his own reasons and therefore, the reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of such reasons are without jurisdiction. In such cases one would necessarily have to look at the surrounding circumstances which led to the issue of the reopening notice and recording of the reasons. The second grievance of the Revenue is that there is a time gap between the Assessing Officer’s response to the audit objection contesting that any income chargeable to tax has escaped audit and his issuing the reopening notice.
Chhotaray very fairly informed us that the audit objection would be a part of the assessment records. The third grievance of the Revenue is that the impugned order is perverse in as much as it holds that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind is without any basis. Thus no fault can be found with the reopening notice as Apex Court order merely clarifies what the law always was and does not make the law. There can be no quarrel with the above proposition that the Supreme Court only declares the law. According to us, the issue is concluded by the decisions of this Court in Reliance India Ltd. Therefore in the present facts the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Bayer Material Science Pvt Ltd vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax would take serious note of the above and after examining the facts, if necessary, take appropriate remedial action to ensure that an assessee is not made to suffer for no fault on its part. In issues such as this, i. Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. The fact that the parties to whom payments were made did not appear before the AO does not justify a disallowance if the assessee has discharged the initial onus and produced documentary proof. The assessee cannot compel the appearance of the parties before the AO.