Audit objections were raised on the revenue audit on the evaluation done by the judge. The audit objections were not accepted by the AO and a notice was outfitted mentioning section u/s 148 to reconsider the judgement. The section 148 notice was outfitted for the treatment of the result. On a decree appeal, provocations filed to reconsider the judgment were as follows:
- Instruction No. 9 of 2006 was outfitted to set out to follow the process at various stages of audit objections and to treat the judgment. To take the judgment on a greater level of responsibility central board of direct taxes issued the notice.
- Even the commissioner of income tax did not pass the appealing rejections. To reopen the judgment, it was the decision of AO alone and no one else. Under Section 147 of the Act the provision (a) to Section 119(1) it is clear that any income tax authority cannot give any such orders or redirection of the CBDT to any income tax authority to make abandonment in any certain judgment.
- The reasons 3-7 accordingly based on audit objections, due to which the AO felt assessment for the AY 2004-05, are unsustainable in law compelled as a judgment of the central board of direct taxes
- CIT v. SIL Investments Ltd. [2011] 339 ITR 166 was held by the Court that where a declaration is provided forbidden on regards of a change in law passed afterwards but with the backward-looking impact, which covers up the last year relevantly, it was not found that there was any failure/mistake in the judgment.
- The main motive to reconsidering the judgment was to spell out the contents that was totally failed to be mentioned by the certain judge. The base of the AO’s judgment and the justification of existence of a reconsideration of judgment notice are the causes to be believed. This must have a connection with an objective fact, in the form of data or outward facts excluded with the recorded content. Such outward facts or content make the assessee or the head judge which bears the authority to re-open the completed judgement lawfully. In absence of this objective ‘trigger’, the AO does not possess authorization to reconsider the judgement. It is therefore, not possible make decision and to authentically prompt to reconsider the judgement was present. (Madhukar Khosla v. Asst. CIT [2014] 367 ITR 165 (Del) referred).
