ITA No.1403/Chny/2023 (AY 2009-10)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee company had furnished its return of income (RoI) for AY 2009-10 on 28.09.2009 and declared total income at ₹ ‘NIL’ and current year loss of ₹ 34,76,38,735/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed revised RoI on 25.03.2011 declaring total income of ₹ ‘NIL’ and current year loss of ₹42,39,61,662/-. Later, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act on 19.08.2010 and it is noted that several notices u/s.142(1) of the Act with questionnaire were issued to the assessee and thereafter, the AO referred the international transactions to the TPO, who after enquiry didn’t suggest any adjustment on those issues; and after hearing the assessee, the AO noted that the assessee during assessment proceedings had filed revised computation of income wherein, the loss was determined to the tune of ₹42,21,21,274/- and the assessment was completed by him (AO) accepting the income as per the revised statement of loss i.e. at ₹42,21,21,274/- by assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 13.02.2023. Thereafter, the AO had issued the impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2015 conveying his desire to re-open the assessment; and pursuant to that, the assessee requested for reasons recorded by the AO to re-open the assessment; and pursuant to such a request, the AO furnished copy of reasons recorded for re-opening on 24.08.2015.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case?
• 2. Whether the CIT (A) was right in quashing the reopening proceeding by holding that AO did not have fresh materials for reopening the assessment. Hence there is change of opinion in this case?
• 3. Whether CIT (A) erred in not following the order of the follow the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.VS. Beedies (P.) Ltd., wherein it was held that reopening of case on basis of factual information given by Audit is valid?
• 4. Whether the CIT (A) erred in not considering the Deeming clause of escapement under the provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to the section 147 of the Act, that gives vide scope for reopening has not been considered by the CIT (A) at all?
• 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the provisions explanation 1 to the proviso to the section 147 of the Act, which clearly states that production before the AO of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the AO will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the forgoing proviso?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Harish Sharma, Proprietor M/s Shekhar Textile Industries v. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Navnirman Infracon Pvt ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

• Mahak Doshi, L/H of Aditya Doshi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Abhisar Estates P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs Sumati Garg

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2009-10Dismissed

• ACIT VS. DEE FACES HERBAL PVT. LTD

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi benchAY 2011-12Dismissed