Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…asat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly material fa…

Baijnath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

…rrect. A decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court dated September 26, 2011 in Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) and another decision from Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court dated November 8, 2011, in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) are two such 16 cases, which throws light on the issue. In the first case, the Assessing Officer in the original assessment had made addition of Rs. 19,86,551 under section 40(1) on account of unconfirmed sundry creditors. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after noticing that unconfirmed sundry creditors, of which details, etc., w…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

…. A decision of from Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated September 26, 2011 in Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) and another decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court dated November 8, 2011, in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) are two such cases, which throws light on the issue. The aforesaid decisions/ facts cases must be distinguished from cases where the material facts on record are correct but the Assessing Officer did not draw proper legal inference or did not appreciate the implications or did not apply the correct law. The second category will be a cas…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

…. A decision of from Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated September 26, 2011 in Dalmia P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 469 (Delhi) and another decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court dated November 8, 2011, in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) are two such cases, which throws light on the issue. The aforesaid decisions/ facts cases must be distinguished from cases where the material facts on record are correct but the Assessing Officer did not draw proper legal inference or did not appreciate the implications or did not apply the correct law. The second category will be a cas…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…asat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there 15 Shri Mithalal D Mutha was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose f…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

…t, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly material…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

…t, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as Shri Kantilal C. Jain such there being a failure to disclose full…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

…(Bom), it was not the case of the C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly material…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

…38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. Sta…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

…38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. Sta…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

…asat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly material fa…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

…as not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the 12 M/s M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the Assessing Officer there was a complete silence in regard to the dates on which the amounts were invested, as such there being a failure to disclose fully and truly material fa…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

…. Ltd. Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. Sta…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

…38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. Sta…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

…61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v…

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG-4(2)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3789/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95) Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-4(2), बनाम/ 202, Maker Tower E, Mumbai Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Neil Phillip

…an only be with reference to the facts borne out or evidenced by the material on record. The disclosure per the return is, in the facts of the case, rather inconsistent with the material on record. The Hon’ble Court in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom), relied upon by the Revenue, following CIT v. Bhanji Lavji [1971] 79 ITR 582 (SC), held as under: “Full and true disclosures must mean what the statute says. These disclosures cannot be garbled or hidden in the crevices of the documentary material which has been filed by the assessee with the Assessing Officer. The assessee must act with c…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

…38, 61) Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (para 10) ITO v. Habibullah (S. K.) [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC) (para 50) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) (paras 34, 35) Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 439 (Bom) (para 17) 3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 257 (Bom) (para 26) International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U. K.) Ltd. [2001] 5 SCC 265 (para 30) Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) (paras 9, 33, 34, 35) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Asst. Director of I. T. [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi) (para 12) Kunhayammed v. Sta…

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…sessment then the AO is empowered under the Act to reopen such assessment under section 147. In support of such contention the Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions: 1. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (340 ITR 53) 2. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (348 ITR 439) 3. ACIT vs. Manubhai Sons & Co. (18 SOT 297) 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (350 ITR 651) 12. The Ld. D.R. submitted, the assessee having not objected to the reopening of assessment before the AO and having participated in the reassessment proceeding he cannot challenge the reopening of assessment at the subs…

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…sessment then the AO is empowered under the Act to reopen such assessment under section 147. In support of such contention the Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions: 1. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (340 ITR 53) 2. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (348 ITR 439) 3. ACIT vs. Manubhai Sons & Co. (18 SOT 297) 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (350 ITR 651) 12. The Ld. D.R. submitted, the assessee having not objected to the reopening of assessment before the AO and having participated in the reassessment proceeding he cannot challenge the reopening of assessment at the subs…