Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 874 - ITAT CHANDIGARHValidity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening resorted to beyond four years from the relevant assessment year - Eligibility of reasons to believe - reasons note that the EDC charges were shown by the assessee as a liability in its Balance Sheet under the head “other liabilities” and rest of the reasons is only the interpretation of the AO regarding the nature of the receipts of EDC being revenue in nature - In the last para of the reasons the AO again reiterates the disclosure of the EDC received by the assessee as a liability in its Balance Sheet - HELD THAT:- Except for the fact that the assessee received EDC during the year, no other fact has come to the knowledge of the AO and this fact as per his own admission, was disclosed by the assessee in his Balance Sheet as liability. Further it is a fact on record, which was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) also and has remained uncontroverted before us, that during assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to submit details of other liabilities, in response to which the assessee submitted the said details disclosing therein the fact of EDC received from land developers. Therefore, to say that the assessee had concealed any material fact relating to EDC, is not correct. That he had reflected it is as a liability in the Balance Sheet and not shown it as revenue receipt in its Profit & Loss Account, is not a matter of fact but on the contrary it is an interpretation of the fact of receipt of EDC regarding its nature and the reasons do not bring out any material /information with the AO leading him to form this opinion of the EDC charges being Revenue in nature. DR has been unable to enlighten us as to what material fact relating to EDC was concealed by the assessee so as to empower the AO to assume jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee beyond four years from the relevant assessment year. No hesitation in holding that since the AO has failed to point out concealment of any material fact relating to income escaping assessment, being EDC, the reopening of the case of the assessee resorted to beyond four years from the assessment years, is against the provisions of law. The jurisdiction assumed by the AO therefore, to frame the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is, therefore, not as per law. The order passed, by the AO as a consequential is not sustainable in law and is, therefore, set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|