Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1778 - ITAT CHENNAIReopening of assessment - Income from sale of culled birds, Profit on sale of lorries, Income from sale of birds’ dropping as manure and Mistake in capital accounts of partners - Held that:- The statement disclosing the income, sought to be brought to tax in the reassessment proceedings, was available with the Assessing Officer at the time of the original assessment, though was not been considered by him, at least in its relevant part. The issue of consideration of an aspect of the matter and formation of opinion in its respect, it may be appreciated, is essentially a matter of fact, the law only barring a change of opinion. Where, therefore, there is a live and clear nexus between the said information and the reasons to believe escapement of income, formed on that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess cannot be called into question as was sought to be canvassed before us. Thus, we hold that the entire assessment in this case is valid and therefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld for both the assessment years. The Managing Partner of the assessee firm, during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act, admitted to have earned an income on the sale of culled birds during the past two years, 50% of the same was assessed to tax as income from the sale of culled birds. The above admission by the Managing Partner was not disputed during the course of reassessment proceedings. The second addition was with regard to profit on sale of lorries which was omitted to be assessed in the regular assessment. Third additions is income from sale of birds dropping as manure, which was estimated to the extent of ₹.50,000/- and assessed to tax. The fourth head of addition was totaling mistake in the capital account of the partners tand the same was assessed to tax. The assessee has not filed any details to controvert the above additions made by the Assessing Officer either before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
|