Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited v. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai / ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-1, Chennai
[Citation -2015-LL-0130-112]

Citation 2015-LL-0130-112
Appellant Name Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited
Respondent Name DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai / ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-1, Chennai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/01/2015
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags international transaction • reassessment proceedings • full and true disclosure • manufacturing activity • expenditure incurred • escapement of income • barred by limitation • denial of deduction • material on record • arm's length price • tangible material • change of opinion • reason to believe • new material
Bot Summary: The petitioner's case is that their Assessing Officer after considering the order of the TPO and independently examining the submissions / documents placed on record by the petitioner, completed the assessment vide order dated 25.02.2013 passed under 143(3) of the Act, and assessed the total loss of the petitioner after making certain disallowances by the impugned notice dated 24.03.2016. Further in the original assessment, there is no discussion, no details were called for, no finding, either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of original assessment. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of all particulars relevant for assessment and the Assessing Officer on consideration of the materials placed before him had completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143 of the Act and present attempt of the 1st respondent is to reopen the same solely on account of change of opinion. The Assessing Officer did not go into the aspect whether production had commenced and made certain observations in paragraph 4.1(4), which shows that the Assessing Officer was of the view that commercial production was commenced in the assessment year 2009-10. In the light of the above legal position, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside for the sole reason that there was no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer except that which was disclosed in the return of income filed by the petitioner for the relevant assessment year. Firstly, assessment proceedings are not a one way proceedings, even in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer while completing the regular assessment, called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee. The conclusion arrived by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order that merely the petitioner has produced books of account before the Assessing Officer and that there is no presumption that all the books were seen by the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect, as during the course of assessment proceedings, documents and evidences were called for from the assessee which were produced and after perusal of the same, the assessment was completed.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 04.01.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.01.2015 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.43435 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.37296 & 37297/2016 M/S.Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Mathur Road, Oragadam Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 602 105 acting through its Authorised representative Mr.Rishab jain Petitioner Vs. 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block, 121, M.G.Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai-600034. 2.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Range 1, Room No.603, 6th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. Respondents http://www.judis.nic.in 2 PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to impugned notice in PAN:AABCF1590N passed by 1st respondent dated 24.03.2016 issued under Section 148 of Income tax Act relating to assessment year 2009-10 and consequential impugned order in PAN:AABCF1590N 2009-10 passed by 2nd respondent dated 25.10.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Vohra, SC for Mr.N.P.Vijaya kumar For Respondents: Mrs.Hema muralikrishnan. ORDER petitioner is Company incorporated during 2007 under provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with its main objects being Designing, Manufacturing, Distributing, Selling and conducting research and development of commercial vehicles and related products and components for Indian and overseas markets. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged notice issued by 1st respondent under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) stating that he has reasons to believe that petitioner's income chargeable to tax for assessment year 2009-10 has escaped assessment within meaning of Section 147 of Act. other order which is impugned in this writ petition is order passed by http://www.judis.nic.in 3 1st respondent dated 25.10.2016 rejecting petitioner's objection for reopening. 2. As mentioned above, assessment year is 2009-10. petitioner filed return of income on 26.09.2009 under Section 139(1) of Act declaring loss. return was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of Act were issued. petitioner would state that during assessment proceedings, case of petitioner was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (herein after referred as 'TPO' for brevity) under Section 92CA(1) of Act, for determination of arm's length price of international transaction done by petitioner with its associated enterprises. 3. petitioner participated in assessment proceedings as well as in proceedings before TPO. TPO vide order dated 27.12.2012 under Section 92CA(3) of Act accepted arm's length price of international transactions done by petitioner with associated enterprises. petitioner's case is that their Assessing Officer after considering order of TPO and independently examining submissions / documents placed on record by petitioner, completed assessment vide order dated 25.02.2013 passed under 143(3) of Act, and assessed total loss of petitioner after making certain disallowances by impugned notice dated 24.03.2016. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 1st respondent seeks to reopen assessment for relevant year. Pursuant to such notice, petitioner vide letter dated 03.05.2016 reiterated stand taken in return dated 20.04.2016. Apart from that they sought for copy of reasons recorded by 1st respondent under Section 148 of Act. 1st respondent vide letter dated 04.05.2016 provided reasons for reopening. petitioner by their letter dated 17.05.2016 filed their objection to initiation of re-assessment proceedings, among other things stating that impugned notice is beyond jurisdiction, barred by limitation, based on change of opinion etc., and hence liable to be quashed. 2 nd respondent by impugned order dated 25.10.2016, rejected objections raised by petitioner. 4. Mr.Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for petitioner invited attention of this Court to audited financial statement of petitioner for financial year ending 31.03.2009 which includes Profit and Loss Account, schedule of Fixed Assets, other Operating expenses etc., learned senior counsel referred to notes to financial statements to show background of Company, its significant accounting policies which includes Fixed Assets and Capital work in progress, research and development expenses and borrowing costs. Referring to paragraph 13 of notes to financial statement, it is pointed out that petitioner's Company was in process of setting up plant for manufacture of http://www.judis.nic.in 5 commercial vehicles and project developmental expenditure includes Rs.805,450,136/- towards research and development. 5. learned counsel referred to Form No. 3CEB (under Rule 10 E of Rules) which is report from Accountant of petitioner as required to be furnished under Section 92(E) relating to international transaction(s). In said report specific reference was made to notes under paragraph 13 to emphasize that it was clearly stated by petitioner that there has been no production during previous year ended 31.03.2010. It is further submitted that Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of Act dated 29.10.2010, for which petitioner submitted their reply dated 08.11.2012 along with five annexures of which annexure no.1 pertains to brief note on nature of business activity of Company and submitted that in said brief note, it has been stated that Company has signed Memorandum of Understanding with Government of Tamil Nadu to set up Truck manufacturing facility at SIPCOT, Oragadam over 398 acres of land. Further, brief note refers to in-house R&D facility activity for research and development of new products and variants towards supporting its manufacturing activity. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 6. learned senior counsel then referred to order passed by TPO dated 27.12.2012, wherein officer has noted that petitioner proposes to start commercial production in year 2012. Further, it was pointed out that details of international transactions and payment for research and development charges paid to their associated enterprises in Germany. Thus, it is case of petitioner that Assessing Officer, while completing scrutiny assessment and passing order dated 24.01.2013 took note of referral made to TPO, stand taken by assessee that they are approaching ICICI bank for obtaining loan of Rs.2,200/- crores for purpose of seting up facility for manufacture of commercial vehicles and specifically in paragraph no.4.1 (iv), Assessing Officer has noted that during relevant year, Company has not commenced production and observed that during pre- production period, expenditure incurred by assessee such as interest on loans, commitment charges, project appraisal fee, loan processing fees in whatever name it is called, formed part of capital employed in industrial undertaking. Further Assessing Officer noted submission of assessee that after Hero group exited from joint venture in 2009 and Company became wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler AG, it started its commercial production only in financial year 2008-09, relevant to assessment year 2009-10. Further, it is pointed out that in paragraph 6.2, Assessing Officer examined case and found that disallowances under Section 14A requires to http://www.judis.nic.in 7 be made in accordance with 3rd limb of Rule 8 and accordingly computed same. Therefore, it is submission of learned counsel that Assessing Officer, while completing scrutiny assessment, all materials were available with Assessing Officer and they were considered and order was passed and impugned proceedings is clear case of change of opinion. It is further submitted that reasons for reopening states that assessee has not fully and truly disclosed material fact that they had not commenced its business during year and mere production of account books or other evidence before Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within meaning of explanation (1) of Section 147 of Act. It is submitted that petitioner vide reply dated 17.05.2016 stated that reasons furnished do not indicate any failure on part of assessee, specifically disclosed truly and fully any material fact necessary for assessment and hence reopening is without jurisdiction. Further it was pointed out that from reading of reasons for reopening, it is evidently clear that belief of Assessing Officer is purely based on existing information which was provided during course of original assessment proceedings and based on return of income filed for subject assessment year. assessee referred to several decision to support their contention that reassessment of income beyond four years is bad in law where cumulative conditions stipulated under Section 147 of Act are not satisfied; In absence of fresh tangible material on record, reassessment http://www.judis.nic.in 8 is invalid; mere change of opinion does not constitute reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and reassessment merely on basis of denial of deduction claimed in subsequent year is invalid, as no fresh tangible material is available. petitioner referring to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited. vs. ITO reported in 259 ITR 19 requested that speaking order be passed on their objection, respondents vide impugned order dated 25.10.2016 has rejected petitioner's objections stating that there has been no discussion about reasons for which case has been reopened now in original assessment order, Hence no opinion has been formed in this regard which may not amount to change of opinion. Further in original assessment, there is no discussion, no details were called for, no finding, either positive or negative was arrived at during course of original assessment. Hence there is no question of change of opinion. That mere production of books of account by assessee before Assessing Officer, there can be no presumption that all books were seen by Assessing Officer and it is duty of assessee to show all relevant particulars in books of accounts, not mere production of books. 1st respondent proceeded to refer certain paragraphs of decision in case of Calcutta Discount Co. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 1961 [41] ITR 191 (SC). We need not refer to those paragraphs as Assessing officer had referred to minority view recorded in http://www.judis.nic.in 9 said judgment and therefore, misdirected himself in relying on those paragraphs. Therefore to that extent, observations and findings in impugned order should be eschewed. Further it is stated that sufficiency of reasons for reopening cannot be questioned, once existence of materials is evident. Therefore, 1st respondent observed that merits of case will be analysed during assessment proceedings by giving due opportunity of hearing to assessee and so rejected petitioner's objections. 7. learned senior counsel submitted that there is no failure on part of assessee to make full and true disclosure of all particulars relevant for assessment and Assessing Officer on consideration of materials placed before him had completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143 of Act and present attempt of 1st respondent is to reopen same solely on account of change of opinion. assessee having disclosed clearly manner of computation of income under Head Profits and Gains from Business or Profession. Apart from adjustment in respect of expenditure incurred prior to set up of business, there can be no reopening. It is further submitted that Assessing Officer in course of regular assessment proceedings formed opinion that factory was under construction, commercial production had not commenced not withstanding that business of petitioner being composite one had been set up, expenses for setting up of plant for http://www.judis.nic.in 10 manufacturing operations had been capitalized. profit/loss from business which had already been set up, notwithstanding that manufacturing activity had not commenced, was to be computed under Head Profits and Gains from business or profession. Therefore, it is submitted that present reassessment proceedings is merely attempt to reappraise materials and evidences already on record, predicated on mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. following decisions were referred to support propositions as framed by learned senior counsel for petitioner. (i).Reasons do not record failure on part of assessee to disclose true and material facts-reassessment invalid: a.Fenner India Ltd.v.DCIT (Mad): 241 ITR 672 (Mad) b.Avtec Ltd. v. DCIT:395 ITR 434 (Del) (ii).Full and true disclosure reassessment invalid: Karti P.Chidambaram v. ACIT: (2017) 88 taxmann.com 27 (Mad) (iii).Explanation 1 to section 147 not applicable CIT v. Baer Shoes(India) (P.) Ltd:331 ITR 435 87(Del) (iv).Re-assessment on mere change of opinion - invalid http://www.judis.nic.in 11 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd:320 ITR 561 (SC) (v).Re-assessment in absence of fresh tangible material invalid CIT v. RPG Transmissions Ltd:359 ITR 673 (Mad) 8. Mrs.Hema Murali Krishnan, learned senior standing counsel for Revenue sought to sustain impugned proceedings by contending that there is clear failure on part of assessee in making full and true disclosure and while completing scrutiny assessment, assessing officer will not go into details contained in Form III CEV, which will be looked into only by Transfer Pricing Officer and only in this document, assessee has stated that production activity has not commenced during relevant year. Therefore, Assessing Officer did not go into aspect whether production had commenced and made certain observations in paragraph 4.1(4), which shows that Assessing Officer was of view that commercial production was commenced in assessment year 2009-10. Thus, in absence of any opinion being formed with regard to commencement of business, it is not case of change of opinion. 9. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.L.A firm Vs. CIT reported in 1991 (55) taxmann 497 (SC), it was submitted that it is not necessary that information based on which reopening is made, must be extraneous to record. Further, sufficiency of reasons http://www.judis.nic.in 12 for reopening cannot be gone into and petitioner should be directed to participate in assessment proceedings. To support such contentions, reliance was placed on decisions on Hon'ble High Court of Rajastan in case of CIT vs Uma Chand Nahar, reported in 2007 (295) ITR 403 (Rajastan) 10. In reply, learned senior standing counsel for petitioner reiterated factual submissions and laid emphasis on notes to accounts, stating that it is very important document which was considered by Assessing Officer, while completing scrutiny assessment. Further, it is submitted that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.L.A firm(Supra) was rendered in context of old law, which has been considered and distinguished by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi(Delhi) in PCIT vs. TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited: ITA No.689 of 2016 dated 04.11.2016. By way of rejoinder of submission, learned senior standing counsel for Revenue referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sowdagar Ahmed Khan Vs. ITO, reported in 1968 (70) ITR 79 (SC) and pointed out that assessee does not discharge his duty to disclose fully and truly material facts by merely producing books of account or other evidences. http://www.judis.nic.in 13 11. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused materials placed on record. 12. Before, I proceed to consider factual aspects, it would be necessary for this Court to first note legal position with regard to exercise of powers by first respondent under Section 147 of Act. For this purpose, I would refer to one of earliest decisions on issue namely, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. ITO, reported in 1961 (41) ITR 191 (SC). said appeal was against decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which reversed order passed by Single Bench under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pertaining to reopening of assessment under Section 34 of Income Tax Act, 1948. legal principles laid down in said decisions are culled out as hereunder: (i)Duty of disclosing of primary facts relevant to decision of question before Assessing Authority lies on assessee. (ii)When some account books or other evidences has been produced, there is no duty on assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, income tax officer might have discovered. http://www.judis.nic.in 14 (iii) Duty on assessee does not extend beyond full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts. (iv)Once all primary facts are before Assessing Authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. (v)It is for Assessing Authority to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. (vi)It is not for somebody else-far less assessee - to tell Assessing Authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. (vii)It is meaningless to demand that assessee must disclose what inferences whether of facts or law, Assessing Officer would drawn from primary facts. (viii)If from primary facts, more than one inference could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to Assessing Authority. Therefore, duty of assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, it does not extend beyond this. (ix)If there were in fact, some reasonable grounds for thinking that there had been any non disclosure as regards any primary fact, which could have material barring on question of http://www.judis.nic.in 15 under assessment, that would be sufficient to give income tax officer to issue notices for reopening. (x)Whether, these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at conclusion that there was non disclosure of material facts would not be open for Courts investigation. (xi)It is duty of assessee, who wants Court to hold that jurisdiction was lagging, to establish that ITO had no material at all before him for believing that there has been such non disclosure. 13. legal principle which can be culled out from decision of this Court in Fenner (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 241 ITR 672 (Madras). When power is invoked under Section 147 after expiry of four years from end of assessment year, further pre-condition for such exercise is imposed by proviso namely that there has been failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Mere escape of income is insufficient to justify initiation of action after expiry of four years. Such escapement must be by reason of failure on part of assessee to truly and fully disclose material facts necessary for assessment. duty of assesee is limited to fully and truly disclosing all http://www.judis.nic.in 16 material facts and is not required to prepare draft assessment order. 14. Bearing above legal principle in mind, we may look into factual scenario in case on hand. As pointed out reasons for reopening, Assessing Officer would admit that he has referred to details mentioned in annexure to return filed by assessee for assessment year 2009-10. Thus, there was no independent material to come to conclusion that there has been no full and true disclosure made by assessee. In such circumstances, it has to be seen whether 1st respondent was justified in reopening assessment year revenue contends that they can do so, based on decision in A.L.A firm (supra). High Court of Delhi in recent decision in case of TATA Power Delhi Distribution considered this very issue wherein Revenue relied upon decision in A.L.A firm. It was pointed out that expression reason to belief was subject matter of extensive discussion by Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, reported in 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and Hon'ble Supreme Court considered correctness of that judgment and held that information received by Assessing Officer, after completion of assessment alone, is sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147 read with Section 148. Therefore, Court rejected contention of Revenue by placing reliance on decision in A.L.A. Firm. Further, it was http://www.judis.nic.in 17 pointed out that judgment in A.L.A. Firm is concerned, assessment was for year 1961-62, Section 147 was amended in 1989, Consequently, declaration of law in A.L.A. Firm was of pre existing law and law as existed was dealt with in Kelvinator of India Limited(Supra). At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to operative portion of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kelvinator of India Limited, reported in 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) and it is relevant to extract paragraph No.6 of same which reads as follows: ''6. We must also keep in mind conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain preconditions and if concept of ''change of opinion'' is removed, as contended on behalf of Department, then, in garb of reopening assessment, review would take place. One must treat concept of ''change of opinion'' as in-built test to check abuse of power by Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is ''tangible material'' to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have link with formation of belief. Our view gets support from changes made to Section 147 of Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted words ''reason to believe'' but also inserted word ''opinion'' in section 147 of Act. However, on receipt of representations from companies against omission of http://www.judis.nic.in 18 words ''reason to believe'', parliament reintroduced said expression and deleted.'' 16. In light of above legal position, impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside for sole reason that there was no tangible material available with Assessing Officer except that which was disclosed in return of income filed by petitioner for relevant assessment year. This has been held to be not sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of Act. This would be sufficient to set aside impugned proceedings. However, since elaborate submissions were made on either side, touching upon factual issues only to test whether reopening was justified or whether it was change of opinion. I proposed to consider said issue. question revolves upon whether petitioner had made full and true disclosure with regard to year of commencement of business. assessee would contend that there has been full and true disclosure. 17. learned senior counsel for assessee pointed out that this aspect was mentioned in return of income and duly explained in notes to financial statements, which forms part of return of income and specifically dealt with by TPO, as it was disclosed by assessee in Form No.3 CEB. Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1) of Act http://www.judis.nic.in 19 and called for information, which were furnished along with letter dated 08.12.2012, brief note on business activity of Company was furnished which shows that petitioner was to set up truck manufacturing facility with R & D facility activity for Research and Development. TPO considered this issue and while passing order dated 27.12.2017, specifically recorded that commercial production proposes to start in year 2012. This material was available and considered by Assessing Officer as could be seen from para 2 of scrutiny assessment order dated 24.01.2013. 18. learned senior standing counsel for Revenue would submit that Assessing Officer will not look into Form No.3 CEB and it is for TPO, to take note of same and only in that said document, it has been stated that production has not commenced. I am unable to countenance submission of learned counsel for more than one reason. Firstly, assessment proceedings are not one way proceedings, even in case of assessee, Assessing Officer while completing regular assessment, called for details and documents which were furnished by assessee. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. ITO, reported in 1961 (41) ITR 191 (SC), nothing more is required on part of assessee except to furnish all material facts. There is sufficient indication to show that Assessing Officer considered order passed by TPO. This would be http://www.judis.nic.in 20 sufficient to hold that materials which were placed in Form No.3 CEB, resulting in order dated 27.12.2012, was part of assessment file, perused by Assessing Officer, but for which he would not have referred to same in paragraph 2. Even assuming Assessing Officer did not look into Form No. 3 CEB. he is bound to look into order passed by TPO, as he is required to see any other additions have been made. This is so because order passed by TPO is binding on Assessing Officer. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that materials disclosed by assessee were available with Assessing Officer and it is from such material, present impugned reopening proceedings have been initiated. Thus, respondent had initiated proceedings purely based on existing information which was provided by assessee in course of original assessment and based on return of income filed by assessee for relevant year. petitioner before Assessing Officer placed profit and loss account and balance sheet and relevant annexures and notes to financial statements. notes are important material because it would disclose details pertaining to various entries in profit and loss account and balance sheet and explain stand taken by assessee. So far as fixed assets is concerned in balance sheet, petitioner has indicated that capital work is in progress. http://www.judis.nic.in 21 19. Thus, in absence of any new material in hands of Assessing Officer or discovery of some materials or new insight after completion of original assessment, question of reopening does not arise. conclusion arrived by Assessing Officer in impugned order that merely petitioner has produced books of account before Assessing Officer and that there is no presumption that all books were seen by Assessing Officer is factually incorrect, as during course of assessment proceedings, documents and evidences were called for from assessee which were produced and after perusal of same, assessment was completed. As pointed out in several decisions, it is for Assessing Officer to arrive at conclusion based on materials produced and it is not for assessee to suggest as to what conclusion that should be arrived as it has been held that assessee is not expected to submit draft assessment order. 20. Thus, for all above reasons, I am of considered view that impugned reopening proceedings is clear case of change of opinion as there has been full and true disclosure by assessee at time of scrutiny assessment/original assessment. Assessing Officer had no tangible material to come to conclusion that there was no full and true disclosure and reopening is based on materials available on record i.e., in return of income filed by assessee for relevant assessment year and based on such http://www.judis.nic.in 22 material, reopening could not have been done as it has been held that information received by Assessing Officer, after completion of assessment alone is sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of Act. 21. Thus, for above reasons, impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. In result, writ petition is allowed and impugned proceedings are quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. However there shall be no order as to costs. .01.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking /Non-speaking order kak/sk http://www.judis.nic.in 23 To 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block, 121, M.G.Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai-600034. 2.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Range 1, Room No.603, 6th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. http://www.judis.nic.in 24 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. kak/sk Pre-delivery Judgment in W.P.No.43435 of 2016 30.01.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited v. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai / ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-1, Chennai
Report Error