High Court Fumes At Irresponsible Attitude Of Dept And Quashes Reopening

CIT vs. Trend Electronics (Bombay High Court)

S. 148: If Dept behaves in an irresponsible manner and does not furnish the record reasons on the basis that the assessee was already aware of them, the assessment has to be quashed
In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent-assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore seeking to justify non-furnishing of reasons. We expect the state to act more responsibly
 

Coperdion Ideal Private Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 147: Laid laid down in ALA Firm v. CIT 189 ITR 285 (SC) does not mean that an assessment can be reopened merely because the AO omitted to apply a binding judgement
The Court is of the view that, in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened in 2009, four years after it was originally made, i.e. 2005, the mere fact that there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of 1997 which was not noticed by the AO when he framed the original assessment cannot per se constitute the only material on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened. When on the same material, four years after the assessment year for which the original assessment is finalised, the AO seeks to reopen the assessment on the basis of a judicial precedent delivered more than eight years earlier, it would be a case of mere ‘change of opinion’, something clearly held impermissible by CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), The threshold requirement of that the AO should, on the basis of some tangible material, conclude that there was escapement of income on account of the Assessee failing to disclose material particulars, is not fulfilled in the present case