Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTReopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - basis for reassessment is to disallow “store launching expenses” incurred during the year on the ground that these are classifiable as ‘capital expenditure’ - HELD THAT:- No new or fresh information or fact that has come to the notice of the JAO subsequent to the assessment so as to initiate proceedings under section 148 of the Act. It is quite obvious that the reopening is based on the material which was already on record at the time of passing the assessment order under Section 143 - Once, the Assessment Officer, on consideration of the material on record, and the explanation offered, arrived at a final conclusion that the assessee is entitled to the deduction as claimed, then on the basis of the very same material, the AO cannot form a prima-facie opinion that the deduction is not allowable and, accordingly, reopen the assessment on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A Division Bench of this Court in Cartini India Limited, (Formerly Godrej Appliances Ltd. [2009 (3) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has observed that where on consideration of the material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the assessing officer, it would not be open to the assessing officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. There is a mistake in the reasons recorded for reopening and according to respondents it is a typographical error that the figure of ₹ 3.02 lakhs was mentioned instead of ₹ 293.24 lakhs. In our view, this mistake demonstrates non-application of mind by respondent No.1 at the time of recording of the reasons for reopening the assessment. Though we do not find the approval under section 151 of the Act in the record and proceedings, we can certainly hazard a guess that even the Approving Authority would not have applied its mind or read the reasons recorded before granting approval. If it had only been read, these errors would have come to light at that stage itself. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned notice under section 148 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|