A case was between Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd and ITO (ITAT Delhi). It was a case of reopening a verdict related to Domestic Tax. The firm said the government organization was not providing any report even giving any report despite repeated letters requesting to provide a copy. The reasons recorded or the grounds on which the assessment was reopened, no such reasons were offered to the assessor. They find that the DR could not confirm whether a case of reopening a verdict related to Domestic Tax had any reason and it was provided by the Assessing Officer to the assesse even they were merely relying on the fact that general practice was followed in Department on supplying of reasons.
It cannot be presumed that the reasons were supplied in the case of the assesse. On the other hand, the assesse has filed evidences in support of its claim of requests for providing the grounds of initiation of the reassessment proceedings. The information about every submission made before the Assessing Officer. He said, it is a case of reopening a verdict related to Domestic Tax. At last, in the considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has not complied with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) limited Vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The authority was providing reasons for reassessment within a reasonable time. Therefore, respectfully following the conclusions cited above, the reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained.
A case of reopening a verdict related to Domestic Tax. The case is about the assesse and quashed. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijay Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 21 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay) provided a Judgment under the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated 14/08/2015 in the case of Kothari Metals vs. ITO in Writ Appeal No. 218/2015, Tata International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 23 taxmann.com 18 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trend Electronics (2015) 61 taxmann.com 308 (Bombay). All the above given are followed by the evident verdicts. A case of reopening a verdict related to Domestic Tax has been resolved at last after a long discussion on the verdict. At last, it can be said that the case went in the favor of the victim and the culprit has to pay for his offensive intentions, which the individual or the firm has kept for their own benefit.