Back
K. R. SHRIRAM, NEELA GOKHALE
Bajaj Energy Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Neela Gokhale, J.
1. Rule. Heard the parties finally by consent. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner assails order dated 21st January 2022 rejecting the objections raised by Petitioner to the notice of Respondents conveying reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Petitioner also assails notice dated 31st March 2021 issued by Respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17 and other consequential relief.
3. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of power generation. Respondent No.1 is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the National Faceless Assessment Centre set up by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") and Respondent No.3 is the Union of India.
4. Petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 27th September 2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,24,47,75,691/- and Rs.1,68,00,96,627/- under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Respondent No.1- Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a notice dated 17th July 2016 under Section 143(2) of the
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
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 under the Income Tax Act requires tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for reassessment.
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....
Reopening under section 147 invalid if based on borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing without AO's independent application of mind demonstrating live link to non-disclosure of material facts,....
It is settled law that, at the stage of Section 148 of the Act, what is required is “reason to believe”, but not the established fact of escapement of income. This aspect has been considered by the A....
Assessee’s objections raised against the reopening proceedings are not acceptable as the case warrants scrutiny on the same lines. Accordingly, the objections so raised are hereby disposed off accord....
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
