Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 422 - HC - Income TaxRe opening of assessment - as per AO the assessee company has received subsidy from Assam Govt. which was not included in the total income of the assessee during year 1996-1997 - Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s.l43(3)/147 on the ground that the reassessment proceeding initiated was barred by limitation - Held that:- The reason, so assigned by AO shows that the information, regarding transport subsidy, was available in the audited accounts and statements furnished by the assessee to the AO along with the assessee's return. These details being available before the AO cannot say that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 or 148 or to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In fact, there is not even a particle of accusation in the re-assessment order to show that the escapement of income, in the present case, was because of the omission or failure, on the part of the assessee, to make return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 or 148 or to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. A finding to the effect that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 or 148 or to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year, is sine qua non for assumption of jurisdiction by AO for re-assessment of income, which escaped disclosure. See Dulichand Singhania v. ACIT [2003 (12) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court (P&H).] In the present case since the present case did not suffer from non-disclosure or omission to disclose 'fully and truly' the facts by the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have been held, and was rightly not held by the learned Tribunal, to have had the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment and make assessment as in the present case. Re-opening of the assessment and making of the re-assessment were bad in law and the learned Tribunal committed no error, either in fact or in law, in allowing the assessee's appeal. Against revenue.
|