Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 10 -

5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts are that the reopening is made on the basis of the note enclosed with the return of income by the assessee. The submission of the assessee is that the assessee has not added provision for doubtful debt in working of the book profit relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt.Ltd. reported at 251 ITR 15. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the material on the basis of which re-opening of assessment was proposed was already before the assessing officer in the form of note. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vishwanth Engineers vs. ACIT reported at (2012) 21 taxmann.com 5 (Guj.), the AO should not have reopened the assessment. We find that the Hon'ble High Court in the said case held as under:-

- 18 -

judgment of this Court in Echjay (supra) and in the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Etcher and HCL (supra). In the circumstances, there was no warrant for re-opening the assessment in exercise of the power conferred under Section 147."

5.4. In the light of law laid down in the judgements referred hereinbefore and in view of the fact that no contrary judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is cited and brought to our notice by the Revenue and the AO had taken note of that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forginings Pvt.Ltd. reported at (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom.) distinguished the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Beardsell Ltd. reported at (2000) 244 ITR 256(Mad.). Further, the AO noted the reliance made on the decisions of the Tribunal and proceeded not to consider the same. This Act of the AO is not justified, he ought to have considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee and, in case, the decisions as relied upon by the assessee were not applicable, he ought to have recorded so. It is not permissible under law that the decisions of Higher Forum is not considered on the whims and fancies of the lower authorities. Under these facts, in our considered view, the AO was not justified in re-opening the assessment, reassessment so framed is not valid. Thus, this ground of assessee's appeal is allowed.