TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lves challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings itself, and, that in the event of this challenge being upheld, all the issues in appeal will be rendered academic and infructuous. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose this prayer. Accordingly, we take up the cross objection first. 3. Grievance raised in the cross-objection is as follows: 1. Because the initial assessment being framed u/s143(3) on 28.03.2000, a period of four years has expired and there being no failure on the part of the assessee appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the Notice u/s 148 and the reassessment framed thereafter are bad in law and be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel points out that in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and factual matrix of this case. 7. The plea of the assessee is indeed well taken. The law is clear and unambiguous, and this plea being a purely legal plea on undisputed facts of the case, can be taken up before us even though it may not have been taken up earlier. A plain reading of first proviso to section 147 restricts reopening of assessments completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, beyond four years from the end of the relevant previous year any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to .disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for this assessment. However, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Y. 1998-99. I, therefore, in light of facts narrated above, have reasons to believe that income exceeding ₹ 1,00,000/- has escaped assessment. Accordingly, it is requested to kindly accord approval for issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in this case for A.Y. 1998-99. Assessment record in one volume is enclosed herewith for kind perusal. (S. YADAV) Income Tax Officer- 6 (2) KANPUR 8. It is also well settled legal position, as was also held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.b. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), that, ..the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
