Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rence from these facts - The inference from the available documents on record has to be drawn by the Assessing Officer - Since the AO did not draw the correct inference or failed to draw inference, it does not mean that there was non-disclosure of all facts by the assessee - the finding of the CIT(A) upheld and he has not committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has disclosed all material facts and they were before the AO at the time of completion of original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act - the Explanation to second proviso to section 147 of the Act has no application – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 1634/Hyd/2012, ITA No. 1638/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2014 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. P. Madhavi Dev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,484 and donation of Rs. 5,00,000 and completed the assessment at Rs. 73,05,484 on 27.12.2011 raising a demand of Rs. 41,55,690. 4. In this case, while completing assessment u/s 143(3) on 28-11-2008 by accepting the returned income, exemption u/s 10B of the Act was allowed to the assessee as had been done in earlier years. Thereafter, on 17-2-2011 notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and the case was reopened. Exemption u/s 10B of the Act was disallowed by giving the following reasons: During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee has not filed a certificate in Form 56G under Rule 16E for claiming deduction u/s 10B. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee. In response to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot reopen the assessment order passed by a mere change of opinion or by drawing a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available. 6. Further he relied on the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdul Rahaman Sait (2008) 306 ITR 142 (Mad), the Hon'ble High Court held that the assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3). Later it was observed that the long term capital gains of Rs. 4,46,000, as admitted by the assessee and accepted in the assessment order, arising from the sale of the assessee's property was not computed correctly, because the value as on April 1, 1981, adopted on the estimate of Rs. 6 lakhs for arriving at the indexed cost of acquisition was not supported by any evid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 7. In view of the above discussion, he observed that the AO did not even possess a single shred of paper or evidence beyond what was already present in the file during the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. An examination of the assessment record shows that the full details pertaining to this case and this particular issue at hand were obtained by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. After considering all the material at hand, the exemption was allowed by the Assessing Officer. This had been done even in the earlier years. He observed that recording of reasons for reopening is nothing but a change of opinion. Accordingly he quashed the re-assessment order. Against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o application. Accordingly, the ground raised by the in ITA No. 1634/Hyd/ 2012 is rejected and the appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 1638/Hyd/12 - M/s. Navionics Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 9. The grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are as under: 1. The CIT(A) erred both on facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the reopening of assessment is bad in law. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the requisite certificate duly signed by an Auditor in Form No. 56G ad required under Rule 16E of IT Rules, 1962, and as such is not entitled for claim of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that in the absence of the requisite certificat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates