Allowing the petition the Court held that , since reassessment order was passed without disposing of assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, same was unjustified. Court also held that where claim of assessee of exemption of income under section 10(1) on proceeds from sale of coffee subjected to only pulping and drying was accepted for several years and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified. (AY. 2009-10)
Karti P. Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Nalini Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233 / 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) P.Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Agricultural income –Change of opinion- Objection was disposed without speaking order-No failure to disclose material facts -Notice for reassessment only for the relevant year and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified .[ S.10(1), 148 ]