TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / petitioner can be said to have failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Petitioner had paid tax on the generation income by grossing up the rate of tax instead of grossing up the income. The rate of grossed up tax is 62.60162% as against the normal rate of 38.50% [35% tax + 10% surcharge] - By virtue of either method, the total tax payable by NTPC, as per the assessment order would come to same. Therefore, this is a clear case where no income has escaped assessment - in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 14458/2006 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2013 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And R.V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr S E Dastur, Sr. Adv. with Mr R Murlidhar, Ms Bindu Saxena, Mr Shailendra Swarup, Mr K K Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material particulars necessary for its assessment and, therefore, the condition precedent stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 had not been satisfied. As a result of which, the propond reopening beyond the period of four years was impermissible in law. In addition to the above conclusion, this Court also held that the issuance of the notices under Section 148 of the said Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to nothing but a mere change of opinion. This finding is apparent from paragraph 37 of the said decision wherein the following observations are made :- The petitioner had disclosed fully and truly the entire process of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the exception carved out in the proviso to Section 147 is not attracted and, therefore, there is a bar from taking action under Section 147 inasmuch as the period of four years has expired. The impugned notice dated 03.02.2006 is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground. (underlining added) It is apparent from the above that apart from the issue of full and true disclosure, this Court had also held that what the revenue was seeking to do was to change its opinion, which was impermissible in law. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent had sought to argue that the present writ petitions were different and distinct from the earlier writ petition which resulted in the judgment dated 10.01.2013 inasmuch as in respect of three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicate that the petitioner had also urged that the deduction under Section 80IA could not be withdrawn midstream inasmuch as it was the first year of deduction which was relevant and until and unless in the first year the deduction was withdrawn there would be no question of withdrawal of the deduction in a subsequent year. However, that point had not been decided in the said judgment dated 10.01.2013 as it was not necessary for the purposes of quashing the said notices. Same is the case here. We need not examine that aspect of the matter inasmuch as we have already held that the said decision dated 10.01.2013 covers the present case entirely. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also sought to argue an additional point with reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
