HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7312 / 2014 Autolite (India) Ltd, having its Registered Office at D-469, Road No. 9A, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur through its General Manager (Finance) Sh. M. S. Shekhawat S/o Late Shri K.S. Shekhawat, aged about 65 Years. ...Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur, Income Tax Department, Statute Circle, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur, Income Tax Department, Statute Circle, Jaipur. ...Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote for Mr. RB Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Judgment 17/07/2017 By this writ petition, challenge is made to Notice dated 29.01.2014 and order dated 02.06.2014 under Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act of 1961 ). Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Notice under Section 147 of Act of 1961 was served on 29.01.2014 for assessment year 2009-2010. Reasons to believe were supplied vide letter dated 12.05.2014. perusal of reasons shows nothing but review of order passed by Assessing Authority. It is stated that while disallowing interest, it was not calculated on opening balance. Though, all relevant facts and figures were available with Assessing Authority thus it cannot be said to be case of escape assessment but review of order. It is also stated that for assessment year 2006-07, very same issue was decided by Assessing Authority in same manner. assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (for short CIT (Appeals) and remained successful. appeal was then preferred by revenue before Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax. It was dismissed and, thereupon, revenue preferred appeal before High Court. It has also been dismissed thus for assessment year 2006-07, issue of dis-allowance of interest has been decided in favour of assessee and it has attained finality. respondents have yet taken up same issue for subsequent assessment year 2009-10 leaving it for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. In view of above, impugned Notices deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondents submits that writ petition to challenge Notice under Section 147/148 of Act of 1961 is not maintainable in case where reasons to believe have been recorded and conveyed to petitioner. response was given but has not been accepted. So far as fact for assessment year 2006-07 are concerned, he is not in know of decision by High Court. In any case, it is case of escape assessment for reasons that Assessing Authority failed to take into account opening balance for determination of interest thus Notice under Section 147 of Act of 1961 was given. It cannot be said to be case of review but of escape assessment. In light of aforesaid, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered rival submissions of parties and perused record. petitioner was served with Notice under Section 147 of Act of 1961 followed by order dated 12.05.2014 where reasons to believe have been recorded. reasons given therein are quoted hereunder for ready reference:- In this case during assessment AO has disallowed interest free loans given to sister concern namely Autopal Industries Ltd., Anushaka & Pal Soft Info systems Ltd. for reasons that loan was not for purpose of business of assessee, therefore, interest @ 15% was disallowed which worked out Rs. 47,08,830/- While disallowing said interest amount was considered only for pruposes of disallowance which was bebited/advanced during year under reference but continued huge outstanding opening balance to Autopal Industries Ltd. Rs. 9,23,95,796/-, Autopal Ltd. Rs. 2,43,57,300/-, Anushka, Autolite Ltd. Rs. 5,30,50,298/-, Pal Soft Infosystms Ltd Rs. 1,07,93,656/- totaling to Rs. 18,05,97,050/- was ignored while making above disallowance. This amount was outstanding during whole year and interest @ 15% on this amount works out to Rs. 2,70,89,557/- which was chargeable to tax but not charged. This resulted in under computation of income by Rs. 2,54,70,510/-. income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 2,54,70,510/- remained untaxed. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that income of Rs. 2,54,70,510 has escaped assessment. Accordingly proceedings u/s 147 of Act are initiated. It reveals that for assessment year 2009-10, Assessing Officer has disallowed interest on loans given to sister concerned as it was not for business purpose. total interest therein was worked out to be Rs. 47,08,830/-. It is said to be case of escape assessment as opening balance was ignored while working about interest. petitioner gave reply to it vide letter dated 26th May, 2014 but it was rejected vide letter dated 02.06.2014. It is stated that similar issue regarding dis-allowance of interest was challenged by assessee by maintaining appeal before CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2006-07. appeal was allowed. revenue preferred appeal before Appellate Tribunal, Income Tax but it was dismissed. Further appeal before High Court remained unsuccessful. In view of above, for assessment year 2006-07 dis- allowance of interest was held to be illegal by CIT (appeals) and further appeals of revenue were dismissed. In light of aforesaid, revenue was expected to govern itself by order passed for assessment year 2006-07. It is moreso when issue aforesaid was not raised for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. It has again been taken up for assessment year 2009-10. If dis-allowance of interest itself goes, opening balance or, for it, other balance become irrelevant. It is also fact that before Assessing Authority, all details were available and assessment was made thereupon thus it cannot be said to be case of escape assessment. view aforesaid is supported by of judgment of Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). In light of discussion made above, impugned notice dated 29.01.2014 and order dated 02.06.2014 are set aside. writ petition is allowed. It is limited to issue of dis- allowance of interest without touching any other issue. (MN BHANDARI) J. sunita/55 Autolite (India) Ltd, v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4, Jaipur / Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur