The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act.  Notice u/s 148 of the Act on 21-3-2001. The  assessee filed writ petition challenging the said notice. The writ petition was admitted. When the writ petition came for final hearing the Revenue contended that  the assessee has not filed the return in response of notice u/s 148 of the Act hence the writ petition deserved to  be dismissed, relied on GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO  (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). On behalf of the assessee  it  was contended that  there is  no hard and fast rule that the assessee should first file its return pursuant to the notice. Relied on the order of High Court in Caprihans India Ltd v. Traun Seem, Dy CIT (2003) 132 Taxman 123 (2004) 266 ITR 566  (Bom))(HC)). Allowing the writ petition of the assessee, the Court held that entire basis for reopening is that provisions of Section 14A and Rule 8D with regard to dividend income was attracted but while completing the scrutiny assessment no mention is made for the same. Petitioner has specifically addressed the query with regard to dividend income from which it is clear that the notice has been issued without proper jurisdiction and therefore, It is not permissible for respondents to change its opinion based on the same set of facts. (WP No. 3440 of 2019, dt  20.12.21) (AY. 2012-2013)

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)