Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1003 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - reasons recorded for reopening - Held that:- On a perusal of the reasons extracted clearly brings out that the contentious issues were noticed by the AO “on a perusal of the assessment records for the A.Y. 03-04”; and there is no whisper about any fresh information on the basis of which the AO has based his “reasons to believe” that income has escaped assessment. Moreover, we find that the reopening has been ordered after four years from the end of relevant assessment year. So, the AO was duty bound to clearly indicate whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment. The admitted facts emerging from the records of this case are that the assessee had filed its return on 28/11/2003 for the relevant assessment year. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 02/03/2006 (PB page 36 to 40). Admittedly, four year’s expired on 31/03/2008 from the end of relevant assessment year. So the notice dated 31/03/2009 u/s 148 of the Act, for reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 was issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, as provided by the first proviso to sec. 147, the AO has to satisfy that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment. On a perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO, we find that the AO has made a bald statement, that the assessee’s total income to the tune of ₹ 42,95,200/- has escaped assessment because of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment. But for this bald statement of the AO, nothing emerges from the records to support the said observation of the AO. We find that all the three issues raised by the AO has been dealt during the original scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, it is a clear case of change of opinion, which has been correctly held by ld. CIT(A) following the ratio-decidendi of the Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] wherein, it was held that ‘mere change of opinion’ cannot per-se be reason to reopen and does not confer jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|