9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act beyond 4 years is valid? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts when the original assessment was made u/s. 143(3) after making all relevant and detailed enquiries? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 147 are attracted in the present case? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction under Chapter VI-A has to be allowed on the profits of eligible units after deducting therefrom the losses of other eligible units? 2. The Assessing Officer made an order of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus the Tribunal viewed that the reopening of the assessment was well within the period as provided for under the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come on appeal before us. 5. A perusal of the notice issued under Section 147 dated 15.12.1997 shows that there were no independent reasons disclosed therein for assessment under Section 147. In the course of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee objected to the proceedings of reopening. The order dated 16.04.1998, passed under Section 148, shows that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HH and 80I on the total income before set off of unabsorbed losses of the earlier years. It is not denied by the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were very much there before the Assessing Officer; that there is no denial of the fact that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the facts necessary for assessment and that there is no such allegation that the escapement of income was on account of the failure of the assessee in not disclosing fully and truly all material facts. In the circumstances, applying the Supreme Court decision referred to above, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the assessee that the assumption of the jurisdiction beyond four years is hit by limitation as provided under Section 147 proviso. Even though, on the merits of the assessment, the assessee's case has to fail, yet, on the limited question as regards the jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
