Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1264 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment by invoking the provisions of first proviso to section 147 of the Act by the Ld. AO is valid in the eye of law? - Addition of STCG - HELD THAT:- We have no hesitation in holding that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts to which the Ld. AO applied his mind and accepted the claim of the assessee that she had earned STCG which was brought to tax. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment contain ample proof in itself to show that there was no new material in the possession of the Ld. AO. He scrutinized the same documents which were already available on records for seeking to reopen the assessment which, in our view, amounts to re-appraisal of the same facts and change of opinion. In ITO vs. Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that having second thoughts on the same material cannot be a ground for valid and proper initiation of reassessment proceedings. Much stress has been laid by the Revenue on the principle of res-judicata which does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Suffice is to say that when the facts are not different it is necessary to maintain consistency as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kumudini Narayan Dalal [2000 (12) TMI 101 - SC ORDER] and CIT vs. Narendra Doshi [2001 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] The contention of the Revenue that Explanation I to section 147 has been overlooked is devoid of any merit. The provisions contained in the present Explanation I were contained earlier in the then Explanation 2 prior to substitution of section 147 w.e.f. 01.04.1989. While interpreting the Explanation 2 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. [1974 (10) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] observed that what the Explanation II refers to are voluminous account books and similar other documents which requires very careful scrutiny and from which material evidence cannot be discovered inspite of due diligence being exercised. Such is not the case of the assessee before us. On the contrary, facts reveal that books of account and other necessary documents were submitted before the AO during assessment proceedings and after scrutinizing them with reference to his queries, he called for further documents for the purpose of finalizing assessment. In such a fact scenario, in our view, Explanation I relied upon by the Revenue, is not applicable. The case of the assessee is outside the scope of Explanation I to section 147. - Decided against revenue.
|