9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion & should be quashed being bad in law." 3. Briefly state relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of "builders and developers". Assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 54,44,830/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 1.12.2006 accepting the total income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the case was reopened us/ 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on the 26.3.2009. The reasons given by the AO reopening of the assessment are (i) Borrowed capital is not utilized for the purpose of the business but given to its partner for their personal use and therefore, interest of Rs. 12,05,738/- claimed by the assessee is neither admissible u/s 36(1)(iii) nor u/s 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned that it is a case of change of opinion as well. Ld Counsel filed a bunch of case laws for demonstrating that AO is barred from reopening the concluded assessments when he does not have any tangible material which acts as a livewire for forming reasonable belief to infer that there is a concealment of income or particulars. In such cases, re-assessment is required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of the AO and CIT (A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that there is no tangible material with the AO while reopening the regular assessment which was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. This is a case of re-opening of the assessment on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2013 7. DCIT vs. Binani Industries Ltd in ITA No.650/M/2013 7. On perusal of the same, considering the absence of „tangible material, we find that the CIT (A) order is required to be reversed. As such, AO reopened the assessment relying only on the papers available on records. Therefore, we agree with the arguments of the Ld AR for the assessee. On merits also, it is the case of the assessee that there is sufficient interest free funds to cover the interest free advances given by the assessee and therefore, the presumption would be that such advances were given from interest free funds and not from the interest bearing funds as held by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
