TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier order stood annulled on the ground of lack of fulfilment of the basic requirement for exercise of jurisdiction under section 147 - there is no bar against reopening the assessment once again on the same grounds after following due procedure in accordance with law. Limitation on reopening of assessment - whether the reopening of assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is valid – the AO has recorded twin satisfaction as required under the proviso to section 147 - the fact that such income has escaped assessment because the assessee had suppressed the closing stock –escapement is by reason of failure on the part of the assesee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed the same, vide order dated February 20, 1997. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was pending for hearing at the relevant time when the petition was filed. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-II, Rajkot, issued notice dated December 24, 1997, under section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed the same return as per the original return since no reasons were communicated in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner. On February 3, 2000, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act asking for information on var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The learned advocate invited the attention to the earlier assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act as well as to the reasons recorded, to submit that the assessment is sought to be reopened again on the very same grounds on which the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on December 24, 1997. It was submitted that on the same grounds in respect of which assessment was also reopened and set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is not permissible for the respondent to reopen the assessment. Next it was submitted that the assessment year is 1994-95 whereas, notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued on March 29, 2001, which is clearly beyond the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the earlier assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act along with the reasons recorded in the present case makes it apparent that the grounds for reopening the assessment are similar. In the circumstances, the first question which is required to be considered is as to whether it was permissible for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the same grounds on which the assessment was reopened earlier and was quashed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessee's appeal. From the order dated January 30, 2001, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is apparent that the earlier assessment was set aside on the ground that the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, it was found that there was irregularity in valuation of closing stock as per the details filed in the last year in the audited accounts. The closing stock was shown at Rs. 31,17,091 in the audited report. The machinery as enumerated in the reasons recorded was shown as machinery in the closing stock. Thus, on March 31, 1994, machinery of the value of Rs. 16,03,820 was shown in the closing stock. However, in the current year, such machinery and its value had not been shown in the opening stock. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was of the opinion that it was clear that such machinery shown as closing stock in the last year acquired after dismantling of four ships had been sold outside the books during the year. Another ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfaction as required under the proviso to section 147 of the Act. From the reasons recorded it is clear that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Considering the fact that such income has escaped assessment because the petitioner had suppressed the closing stock of generator sets as well as barrels of oil as referred to hereinabove, the logical conclusion is that such escapement is by reason of failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. When there is suppression, it goes without saying that there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, even if the same is not expressly stated in such terms. In the circumstances, the contention raised on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
