Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 607 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and non deduction of tds u/s 194H commission allowance - validity of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- A reading of the impugned order would show that the original assessment order was framed under Section 143 (3) i.e. after scrutiny of all the claim by the assessee. It is thus apparent that the declarations and claims made, received careful consideration by the A.O. In terms of Calcutta Discount Ltd. Co. Vs. I.T.O. [1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] the job of the A.O. essentially is to consider the claims in accordance with law and not in accordance with what an assessee states. Likewise, that an assessee might not claim a benefit would not deny it that relief, conversely, since the A.O is bound to administer the law in its correct interpretation. The impugned judgment took into account the binding decision of Commissioner of Income – Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] where the Court after reviewing the entire law, including the decision in Raymond Woollen [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] held that for a valid reopening of an assessment completed under Section 143 (3), the revenue must be in possession of tangible material outside of the record. In other words, a second opinion or a review on the existing material is impermissible. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in granting the relief to the assessee on both aspects, there was no allegation of suppression or mis-declaration by the assessee. The A.O. in the original assessment took into account all claims. The mere fact that he overlooked some provisions itself-in the absence of tangible material could have afforded opportunity of reassessment to the revenue. - Decided against revenue
|