Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioner in objections had submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated in view of the audit objections. It was a case of „change of opinion‟ and the nature and character of the business activities undertaken by the petitioner were examined at the first round and the Assessing Officer was satisfied that Section 10B was applicable to the said activities i.e. the petitioner had carried on business of manufacture or production.

9. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 28th September, 2010 has referred to the said contention of the petitioner in the objections but after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in New Light Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2001)170 CTR 138, rejected the said contention recording that the audit objection was in respect of a new information and not law.

10. It cannot be disputed and questioned that the nature of activities being undertaken by the assessee were in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer in the first round. The nature and character of the said activities i.e. printing of books has been mentioned in the assessment order itself. It is also recorded that these books were printed and supplied to different parties as per the instructions of the overseas importer. Thus, it is incorrect and wrong that any fresh or new factual information came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer after passing of the first assessment order dated 25th August, 2008. No new fact came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, which made him believe that the petitioner was carrying on another activity and was not printing books. The audit objections in the present case reflects and indicates that the auditors were of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had erred in accepting the legal position that printing of book amounts to manufacture or production. In the present case, the Assessing Officer as per the "reasons to believe" had formed an erroneous legal opinion in the original assessment order. Such cases cannot be covered and cannot be made subject of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Appropriate remedy available to the Revenue was to initiate proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, as it is their stand that the assessment order was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.