CIT v. Narcissus Investments P. Ltd. (2019) 417 ITR 512/182 DTR 73/ (2020) 314 CTR 833 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Export business- No new material- Notice under direction of Commissioner-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [ S80HHC, 148 ]

The AO allowed the claim u/s 80HHC  after considering the submission of the assessee.. Despite a strong reply to the audit objection, the AO upon requiring him to take “remedial action forthwith”, had issued notice dated February 17, 2000, i.e., on the very next day, under section 148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment.  Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings. On appeal by the revenue dismissing the appeal the Court held that the material on record indicated that there was no independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. The notice was not valid.  Distinguished  IPCA Laboratories Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2001) 251 ITR 420 ( Bom) (HC)  (AY.1995 -96)