Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Surat Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd, ========================================================== Appearance

C/TAXAP/1015/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 1015 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VersusM/S SURAT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,==========================================================Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 14/08/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13.02.2013 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in treating the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act as bad in law and quashing the same without appreciating the facts that assessee was in existence even after issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act and PAN of the assessee is still in existence? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,88,80,038/- without appreciating the facts that the provisions standing in the form of liability are required to be treated instead as income of the assessee as per provisions of Section 41(1) of the I. T. Act?” assessee as per provisions of Section 41(1) of 2.First question pertains to the validity of the notice for reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal invalidated the reassessment on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent-assessee, a cooperative bank has merged with another bank and the notice was served on the nonexistent entity. The second reason was that there was a scrutiny assessment which the Assessing Officer wanted to reopen on the same material. In other words, in the opinion of the Tribunal, reopening would be based on change of opinion. 3.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we see no reason to interfere. Keeping the question of proper service open, we are convinced that reopening of the assessment was correctly held to be bad in law by the Tribunal. The assessee had argued before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there was a full-fledged scrutiny of the return filed, during which, several queries were raised and duly answered by the assessee. On the same material, the Assessing Officer cannot reexamine the same issues. This being the position, first question is not required to be considered. 4.When we upheld the Tribunal's view on invalidity of the reopening proceedings, it is not necessary to go into the contentious issue of deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the question of genuineness of the liability. 5.Our dismissal of the appeal therefore should not be seen as confirming the opinion of the Tribunal in this respect. 6.In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)