Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1463 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - Whether notice u/s 147 issued to the Assessee for reassessment after four years was barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- Question No.1, is answered in favour of appellant and it is held that limitation in the case in hand was six years under Section 149(i)(b), hence, notice under Section 147 was not barred by limitation and finding of Tribunal on this issue, which otherwise, is reverse Whether the reasons given by competent authority approving reassessment is within scope of Section 147 of Act, 1961? - Coming to the second question, it is not in dispute that entire amount and deduction claimed by Assessee was fully disclosed to Assessing Officer when assessment was made by allowing claimed deduction under Section 154, on 07.12.2007, and subsequent orders under Sections 144, 251 and 254 would make no substantial difference in this regard. That being so, we have to examine whether here is a case of change of opinion or it is a case of genuine reason to believe to Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. in question. There has to be some valid ground, that is some relevant document or material having escaped notice or there has been wrong calculation due to human error bona fide committed, or ignorance of correct and complete facts due to mistake or ignorance of fraud/ misrepresentation. It is not in dispute that Assessee has disclosed full and correct facts and there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of Assessee at all. With open eyes, after examining the entire matter, AO, completed assessment under Section 143(3) and that being so, subsequent changed opinion that 100% depreciation has wrongly been allowed, it could not have issue notice under Section 147. In this regard, view taken by Tribunal, we find is correct and in accordance with law. Question No.2, therefore, is answered against appellant and in favour of Assessee.
|