Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Pensol Industries Ltd. vs The Acit 1(2) And Anr. on 24 September, 2014
1
Income Tax Appeal No.13/2013
24.09.2014
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
questions of law: -
(A) Whether the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal is perverse, erroneous, unjustified,
bad in law and suffers from infirmities and is
liable to be set aside inasmuch as the same has
been passed by way of reiteration of the orders
of lower authorities without consideration of the
material on record and without mentioning the
legal and factual contentions of the appellant
filed before the ITAT in writing and in the form of
a paper book and without examining the issues
involved in the instant case?
(B) Whether the reassessment proceedings
under Section 147 read with Section 148
deserve to be quashed since these were based
on a change of opinion and particularly when the
objection to the reassessment proceedings was
not disposed off by the Assessing Officer by a
separate speaking order as mandated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India)
Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)?
(C) Whether the Tribunal was justified in
approving the reopening of the completed
assessment merely on the basis of report as
furnished by the inspector on the basis of bank
statement of the assessee as provided by the
AO of the assessee himself which was before
him during the course of original assessment
proceeding this is nothing but mere change of
opinion which is not permitted under Section
147 / 148 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Limited
as reported in 320 ITR 561?
2
(D) Whether the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lovely Exports 319 ITR 5
(SC) is a binding precedent as it was a dismissal
of SLP by a speaking order and squarely applies
to the facts of the present case wherein the
appellant has proved the identity of the
shareholders by filing their affidavits, PAN
numbers, Income-tax returns, audited balance-
sheet, confirmations, bank accounts and
income-tax assessment order?
(E) Whether the ITAT erred in confirming the
order of CIT (A) wherein the Amendment by
Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 has been
held to be clarificatory by the CIT (A) and the
said amendment has been applied by the CIT (A)
even to the case of the appellant for AY
2003-04?
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF
within a week.
(Shantanu Kemkar) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
rcp