Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B Krishna Mohan, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ
CCL Products (India) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
ORDER :
(B.Krishna Mohan, J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the Notice with DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031908437(1) dated 30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent (Impugned Notice-1), Notice with DIN-ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1037352472(1) dated 29.11.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent (Impugned Notice-2) and the Order with Din & Letter No.ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1038028742(1) dated 22.12.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent (Impugned Order) as being in violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, patently illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g)of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is interalia, engaged in the manufacture and supply of soluble instant coffee powder, agglomerated/granule coffee, roast & ground coffee and concentrated liquid coffee and other related products. The petitioner filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 and all the audited financials including Form 3CA under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, balan
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years without fresh tangible material or proper disposal of objections is illegal under the Income Tax Act.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
The judgment established the importance of tangible material and the prohibition of a mere change of opinion in the exercise of power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The court emphasized the need for tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment and held that the power to grant approval for re-opening an assessment is coupled with a duty and can....
The Court should be guided by the reasons recorded for the reassessment and not by the reasons or explanation given by the Assessing Officer at a later stage in respect of the notice of reassessment.....
Reopening of assessment is “sufficient reason” to believe that there is escapement of income and the “sufficiency” of the reasons cannot be gone into by the High Court in a writ proceedings under Art....
Reopening of income tax assessments requires new tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
