9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 on 11 March 2011 seeking to reopen an assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05. 3. The Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 on 30 October 2004. An order of assessment was passed on 28 November 2006 under Section 143(3). The reopening of the assessment under Section 148 is by a notice dated 11 March 2011 which admittedly has been issued beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The reasons which have been disclosed to the Petitioner for reopening the assessment furnished two grounds for the reopening of the assessment. Firstly, it has been stated that as against a total income of Rs. 162.41 Crores, the assessee had applied an amount of Rs. 113.94 Crores towards the object of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Writ Petition 2394 of 2010). While allowing the petition the Division Bench observed as follows " It is not in dispute that the additions sought to be made by reopening the assessment have been held on merits by this Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110 (Bombay) that such additions are not permissible in law. Moreover in the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained." 5. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pening of the assessment, it was stated that during the course of the discussions before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had explained that the provision for doubtful accounts consisted of three items viz. (i) general charges which could not be recovered from various members; (ii) amounts relating to Valan account and (iii) general charges and Valan account balance of members prior to 1996-97 which could not be recovered. This statement has not been controverted while disposing of the objections when the Assessing Officer passed an order thereon on 30 November 2011. 7. The reopening of the assessment has taken place beyond a period of four years. The jurisdictional requirement in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment."
7. Beyond a bald averment in the reasons that the assessee had failed to disclose material facts, the Assessing Officer has not indicated as to what material facts were not disclosed. The record would indicate the contrary.
8. For these reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 11 March 2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Rule is made absolute in these terms.
There shall be no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
