Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 148 - AO did not provide the copies of the reasons to the assessee inspite of prayer of the assessee - main emphasize of assessee was that a scrutiny assessment was passed on assessee and notice u/s 148 has been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the earlier assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) - AO sought to reopen this assessment order after five years, we have extracted the reasons but nowhere in the reasons the AO has alleged, which material was not truly and fully declared by the assessee, and such non-disclosure has led to escapement of income. Assessee has demonstrated that two-fold of reasoning assigned by AO namely that assessee has claimed carry forward of losses, i.e. the first-fold of reasoning and the second fold of reasoning is that a provision for NPA has been made which is not allowable in case loss is concern, the first one is factually incorrect and in the second observation, AO has not visualize the provision u/s 36(viia) - He has not pinpointed, which provision has been made illegally. Assessee being a non-scheduled Bank is entitled to make provision. If there were some error that has not been demonstrated in the reason. Therefore, AO failed to pinpoint the failure at the end of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly, which led the escapement of income from taxation. Apart from the above, it is further observed that under the original assessment, loss was determined at Rs. 1,73,54,450/- In the re-assessment order, this loss has been reduced to Rs. 1,05,47,793/-. The only fact is that loss has been reduced. The loss has not claimed as a carry forward. There is no impact on taxation. It is just an academic exercise undertaken by the ld. Assessing Officer. Had the AO verified subsequent return, then, he would have dropped the proceedings. On going through all these aspects, we are of the view that reopening is not sustainable. Decided in favour of assessee.
|