- (1.) The Petitioner has challenged the orders/communications pertaining to the reopening of its assessment for the asst. yr. 2002-03.
(2.) The Petitioner had filed a return under Section 139 of the IT Act, 1961 on 31st Oct., 2002 declaring an income of Rs. 15,25,960. The Asstt. CIT passed an assessment order dt. 31st March, 2005 under Section 143(3). The assessment order records that the Petitioner consists of two divisions, one of which is M/s Ferromet Concentrates which derives an income totally from export and is therefore eligible for exemption under Section 10B from the asst. yr. 1999-2000. The assessment order further records that the exemption under Section 10B was not claimed as the Petitioner had not derived any taxable income during the period 1999-2000 to 2001-02. However, during the assessment year under consideration, the Petitioner had made a profit. Subsequently after issuing a notice dt. 12th May, 2006, an order under Section 154 dt. 25th May, 2006 was passed rectifying the assessment order by disallowing the deduction under Section 80HHC. We however, are not concerned with the same.
(3.) The present petition requires a consideration of the subsequent orders. A notice dt. 1st April, 2008 was issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner under Section 148 stating that the Respondent had reason to believe that the Petitioner's income chargeable to tax for the asst. yr. 2002-03 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of Section 147. The Respondent therefore proposed reassessment of the income for the said assessment year and called upon the Petitioner to deliver a return. The notice stated that it was being issued after obtaining necessary sanction of the CIT, Karnataka (Central), Bangalore.;