Loading High Court cases…
248 orders · Page 3 of 5
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan, noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was stated to be solely due to the monetary limits prescribed by recent CBDT circulars and not an admission of the Department's stand on merits. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The interim applications connected to these appeals were also dismissed.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was merely based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer from that held during the original assessment proceedings. The court noted that the assessee had addressed a communication dated 22.04.2008 on the same grounds that formed the basis for the notice under Section 148, confirming that the issue was considered during the original assessment. The court found that this change of opinion did not constitute justification or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Consequently, Questions 1 and 2 were answered in favour of the assessee. In view of this decision, Question 3 was not required to be answered. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on Circular No.5 of 2019, dated 05.02.2019, which extended the monetary limits previously set by Circular No.3 of 2018 (dated 11.07.2018) to wealth tax appeals. Since this circular had not been superseded, and the present appeals were below the stipulated tax effect, they were deemed not maintainable for further adjudication on merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by tax authorities that do not meet the prescribed monetary limits, as per binding circulars, are to be dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. ICICI Bank Ltd. The Court agreed with the ITAT's view that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted. The reasoning was that the assessee had made a bona fide claim linked to business profit. A mere variance in the deductions allowable due to a change in the determination of business profit cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. The Court cited the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd., stating that if the Revenue's contention were accepted, every return where a claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer would invite penalty. A claim made in the return, even if not sustainable in law, by itself does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the appeal or the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that a party has the right to withdraw their appeal, and upon such withdrawal, the appeal is dismissed without any adjudication on the substantive issues.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the counsel for the appellant stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. No decision was made on the merits of the case. There were no operative directions other than the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court, based on the submission of the Revenue's counsel, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the withdrawal was instructed due to the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.09/2024, and that this withdrawal did not concede the Department's position on the merits of the case. The principle derived from this judgment is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the Revenue if it falls below the prescribed monetary limits, without prejudice to the Department's stance on the underlying issues. No order as to costs was made. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that all substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the assessee's counsel, Mr. Vijayaraghavan, submitted that the first question was covered by the judgments in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sintex Industries Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Ltd. The second question was covered by Commissioner of Income Tax v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. Precot Meridian Ltd. The third and fourth questions were covered by Commissioner of Income Tax-LTI, Chennai v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. and Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The revenue's counsel, Ms. Pushpa, agreed with these submissions. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The specific reasoning for each question's resolution by the Tribunal, as upheld by the High Court, is not detailed beyond the reliance on cited judgments.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, considered the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel stated that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and therefore, the Revenue wished to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's position. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the Revenue if it falls below the prescribed monetary limit, without prejudice to its original stand.
The High Court noted that the revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on the fact that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was solely due to this monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's position. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.09/2024. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was without conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the order of the ITAT.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided by the appellant's counsel was that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024. Based on these instructions, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without prejudice to the Department's stand on the merits of the case. No specific issue on the merits of the original assessment or the Tribunal's order was decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was based on the appellant's submission that the monetary limit of the appeal fell below the threshold stipulated in a recent circular. The court accepted the counsel's statement that the withdrawal was motivated by this procedural aspect and not by any concession on the merits of the case. No order was made as to costs. The judgment did not address any substantive income tax issues, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of withdrawal.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024 and, based on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. The court accepted this submission and ordered the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific issue decided by the Tribunal in the original appeal (I.T.A.No.1350/Mds/2014) was not discussed or decided by the High Court in this proceeding.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars No.05/2024 and 09/2024. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was stated to be solely due to the monetary limit and without conceding the Department's stand. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, and no costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal is below the limits prescribed in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, and she had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this basis. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without conceding the stand of the Department. The operative direction is that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no part of the Tribunal's order was upheld or set aside.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been acted upon by the Assessing Officer, leading to the passing of a fresh assessment order. The Court also took into consideration that an appeal against this fresh assessment order is already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Given these circumstances and the factual findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the matter. The Court explicitly clarified that its decision was not an observation on the merits of the case. Therefore, no relief was granted to the appellant, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the appellant's counsel that the monetary limit involved in the appeals were below the limits prescribed in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, and that counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeals on this basis. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without conceding the stand of the Department. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circulars No.05/2024 and 09/2024. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without conceding the Department's position on the merits. Therefore, no decision was rendered by the Court on the substantive grounds of appeal that might have been raised. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the Revenue stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limits in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. Based on instructions received, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court was informed that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's stand on merits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the substantive issues of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs.
The High Court held that the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based entirely on the submission of the appellant's counsel that the monetary limit of the appeal fell below the threshold stipulated in recent CBDT circulars, which mandated withdrawal of such appeals. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's stand on merits. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. The interim application was also dismissed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limits in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. The counsel stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal for this reason, clarifying that the withdrawal was without conceding the Department's stand. The Court accepted this submission and ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issues were decided on merits, and the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit of the appeal fell below the threshold stipulated in recent CBDT circulars, and consequently, instructions were received to withdraw the appeal. The counsel clarified that the withdrawal was solely based on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's stand on the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the Revenue stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. The counsel further indicated that she had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was stated to be solely due to the monetary limit and without conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the Tribunal on the merits of the case, or the reasoning behind the Revenue's original appeal, were not discussed or decided by the High Court.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellant (revenue). The counsel stated that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the limits prescribed by Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's position. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance. Based on these instructions, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court was informed that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel, Mrs. Pushpa, stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limits in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the counsel informed the Court that she had instructions to withdraw the appeal. It was further clarified that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission or concession regarding the Department's stand on merits. The Court accepted this submission and ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was being withdrawn due to the monetary limit prescribed by recent circulars from the Ministry of Finance. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was without conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this procedural ground, and no decision was made on the merits of the case. The Court also ordered no order as to costs.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel, Mrs. V. Pushpa, stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024. Acting on instructions, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The court was informed that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the ITAT or the grounds on which the appeal was filed are not discussed or decided upon by the High Court.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars No.05/2024 and 09/2024. Consequently, the counsel, acting on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was stated to be solely due to the monetary limit and without conceding the Department's stand on merits. The Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue on the merits of the assessment was decided.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel, Ms. Pushpa, stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limits in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, and therefore, she had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was solely based on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, and there were no operative directions other than the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal because the monetary limit involved was below the prescribed limits in Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific issue decided by the Tribunal below was not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the prescribed limits in recent CBDT circulars, and consequently, she had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel clarified that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's stand on the merits of the case. The Court accepted this submission and passed an order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings on the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal are not discussed or decided by the High Court.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel, Ms. Pushpa, stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. The counsel further stated that she had instructions to withdraw the appeal for this reason, and that the withdrawal was solely based on the monetary limit and did not concede the Department's stand. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) informed the Court that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limits prescribed by Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the withdrawal was only on account of the monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's stand. The Court ordered that there shall be no order as to costs.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant (revenue) stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court was also informed that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not a concession on the Department's stand. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific issue decided by the ITAT, or the merits of the case, were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided was that the assessee had settled the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also stated that there would be no order as to costs. The principle established is that appeals can be withdrawn if the underlying dispute has been resolved under a settlement scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, thereby obviating the need for the court to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the monetary limit prescribed by the circular dated 02.11.2023 and the instruction to withdraw the appeal. The counsel clarified that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the Department's position. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer had issued multiple questionnaires under Section 143(2) and the assessee had provided all details. The Court emphasized that the manner in which an assessment order is drafted is within the sole domain of the Assessing Officer, and the assessee cannot insist on all questions being raised. Once a question is raised and replied to, it implies the Assessing Officer was satisfied. Therefore, there was no need for fresh assessment. The Court concluded that the re-opening of the assessment was merely based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which does not constitute justification or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The appeal was allowed.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the settlement of the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, and no principle of law was established or affirmed for future citation. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the monetary limit of the appeal being below the prescribed threshold as per Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Consequently, the counsel, on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without conceding the stand of the Department. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no operative directions were issued beyond dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The principle derived from this decision is that appeals can be withdrawn if the underlying dispute has been resolved through a settlement scheme, and the court will permit such withdrawal without delving into the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the Revenue stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Based on instructions, the counsel stated that he was withdrawing the appeal. The Court further noted that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the Revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant circular. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be without conceding the Department's position on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The judgment does not record any decision on the substantive issues that might have been before the ITAT.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, upon a request made by the assessee's counsel, Mr. A.S. Sriraman, granted leave to withdraw the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the assessee had settled the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The specific findings of the ITAT or the grounds on which the appeal was filed before the High Court were not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023, and accordingly, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and not on merits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original appeal was decided.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.09/2024. The counsel, having received instructions, stated the intention to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court observed that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The Court agreed with the Assessee that the exceptions provided in Circular No.5/2024 would not apply in this case, despite the order originating from a Section 263 proceeding. The reasoning was based on Clause 3.1(f) of Circular No.5/2024, which states that exceptions apply where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved. In this case, the tax effect was clearly quantified at Rs.1,84,10,624/-. The Court further clarified that the reference to Section 263 cases in the circular was for illustrative purposes only, and the exception would not apply when the tax effect is quantifiable. The circulars issued under Section 268A of the Act are aimed at litigation management and revising monetary limits. Since the tax effect was quantified, the appeal fell under the 'less than tax effect' category and was therefore not covered by the exception. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were not valid and that the reopening was based purely on a change of opinion. The Court agreed with the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The reasoning was that the AO had all the necessary details during the original assessment proceedings, as evidenced by the assessee's letters dated 16.10.2006 and 13.9.2006, and the subsequent order under Section 154 dated 19.2.2007. The Bombay High Court's decision in Aroni Commercials Limited was cited, which held that if a query is raised during assessment and the assessee replies, it is considered subject to the AO's consideration, and reopening based on such a query constitutes a change of opinion, which is not a valid reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.