Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. ... on 10 March, 2005
11. It is well accepted that if assessing officer's
reason to believe lacks validity, the reopening of
assessment would not be permissible. It is true that
the words used are "reason to believe" and that
therefore, the same must be based on subjective
satisfaction of the assessing officer. The Court's
scrutiny in exercise of writ jurisdiction would,
therefore, be necessarily limited. Nevertheless, if
the proposed addition on the basis of which the entire
notice of reopening is founded, lacks legal validity,
surely, such notice cannot be sustained. In the
present case, additions sought to be made by the
assessing officer through this process of reopening of
Page 8 of 9
C/SCA/25089/2006 JUDGMENT
the assessment previously closed after scrutiny has
not been approved by this Court. The Tribunal's
judgment that even at the first instance in regular
assessment, such addition could not be made is
confirmed by the High Court in the case of Deputy
Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley
Fertilizers Co.Ltd. (supra).
Radha Swami Satsang vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 April, 1982
5.1 Tribunal, however, noted that in last seven
years, no such disallowances were made.
Referring to and relying on the decision in
case of Radha Satsang V. CIT 193 ITR 321, the
Tribunal directed that such benefit be granted.
Saurashtra Cement And Chemical ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 October, 1994
5.2 It is an undisputed position that claim
under Section 35D of the Act did not arise for
consideration for the first time. Since last
several years, the Assessing Officer had
granted such claim on the same consideration.
The Tribunal therefore, correctly held that
Page 7 of 9
C/SCA/25089/2006 JUDGMENT
such claim could not have been suddenly
disallowed. We may refer to a decision of this
Court in case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical
Industries Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Gujarat, reported in [(1980) 123 ITR 669],
wherein, in the context of successive claim of
tax holiday, the Court held that the ITO was
not justified in refusing to continue the
benefit of such tax holiday granted to the
assessee in the earlier years, without
disturbing the relief granted for the initial
years. We are conscious that the issue is not
identical in nature. However, the Income-tax
Act recognizes the principle of consistency. In
the present case, for as many as seven years,
previously the Assessing Officer did not
dispute certain claims and therefore, the
Tribunal correctly interpreted that the
Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the
issue."
Section 35D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1