TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO is not entitled to change the opinion and thereby again reopen the assessment within the period of four years.Issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 69 - Gujarat High Court). - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2015 - Jayant Patel And S. H. Vora,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr K M Parikh, Adv. For the Respondent : None ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) 1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the following questions of law, which reads as under: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the reassessment on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. At the outset, it is worth to mention that the assessment record for the year under consideration has been produced before us. There was an ordersheet which had mentioned that the said reply dated 17.11.2006 was kept in a separate record. Therefore, the finding on facts about the existence of the reply of the assessee dated 17.11.2006 as recorded by learned CIT(A) appears to be correct. This reply was in compliance of a questionnaire dated 10.11.2006 issued by the AO, wherein one of the query was in respect of the payment made to subcontractors. The assessee has furnished the details of the subcontractor expenses. Even in the books of account, the assessee has furnished the details of work expenses which had included the payment made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to change the opinion even after the reopening has been done within four years, few case laws have been cited, as listed above. This issue is covered by an order of Gujarat High Court pronounced in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., 350 ITR 266 (Gujarat). 6.1 In addition to the above, an important feature for reopening has also been noted by us that the reasons recorded were vague rather presumptive. It was a presumption, very often subcontractors are used as front men to reduce the income as the work was entrusted to them was also normally carried out by the assessee and such payments revert back to the assessee. There was no evidence in possession of the AO that the assessee in fact was involved in such practice. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n about the expenditure claimed by assessee could not be ruled out at the time when the earlier assessment was made and therefore, thereafter, the AO is not entitled to change the opinion and thereby again reopen the assessment within the period of four years. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. reported at 350 ITR 266 (Guj). It further appears that the Tribunal, on facts found that the reasons recorded were vague and rather presumptive and there was no formation of the belief that some income had escaped assessment. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 6. In our view, on the aspect as to whether there was sufficient material befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
