TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputable. In normal case therefore, nondisclosure of such claim not being approved, if such was the fact, may amount to not disclosing true and full facts. According to the petitioner, factually, the scheme was approved by the Commissioner way back in the year 1976. It was only after it, the LIC would undertake the responsibility to manage the same. It was on this basis that the petitioner had been raising the claim year after year right since its inception every year. In none of the past years, any such issue was raised by the Assessing Officers in this respect. Therefore, the petitioner produced what it had been producing all along namely, the contribution made towards the fund and the agreement of the LIC to manage the fund. If t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the employees and claimed full deduction of such amount from the gross total income. The return was taken in scrutiny. After detailed scrutiny, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.03.2013. Barring two minor adjustments, return income was accepted. In any case, there was no addition of the gratuity amount of which deduction was claimed by the petitioner. 3. To reopen such assessment, the impugned notice came to be issued which, as can be seen, was done beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In order to do so, the Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons: On verification of the records it is noticed that the assessee had debited & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conditions of approval are set out in Rule 3. The approval is to be granted by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, who has been vested with that power under rule 2(1) of Part C of Fourth Schedule. Thus, while filing the return of income and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had presented incorrect details leading to escapement of taxable income of ₹ 65,00,000/-. The said omission is on the part of the assessee. The correct details and facts have now come to light as discussed above and thus, the provisio to section 147 is attracted. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that it is a failure on the part of the assessee, who has not disclosed fully and truly all material fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Principally, it was therefore contended that reopening of the assessment would amount to change of opinion and, in any case, there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. 6. Ignoring such objections of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer decided to proceed further with the reassessment by rejecting the objections under an order dated 23.10.2017. In such order, he observed that reassessment would be permitted when some fresh facts which had not come to light and therefore were not disclosed, come to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Such would not be a case of change of opinion. He also observed that in some of the past cases, the claim has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance-sheet which included the said further sum of ₹ 15.86 lacs. 8. It further appears that during the course of assessment, the petitioner had produced an agreement between the LIC and the trustees of the gratuity scheme under which, the LIC would manage the fund. This also contained a clause whether the scheme was required to be approved to which, the remarks made were in the affirmative. 9. The case of the petitioner further is that the scheme was framed way back in the year 1976 itself. However, the petitioner does not have the order so passed by the Commissioner after such a long passage of time. Nevertheless, it was on the basis of such approval that the petitioner had been, year after year, claiming the deduction which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y year. In none of the past years, any such issue was raised by the Assessing Officers in this respect. Therefore, the petitioner produced what it had been producing all along namely, the contribution made towards the fund and the agreement of the LIC to manage the fund. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt about such a claim, it was always open for him to examine it, ask the petitioner to fulfill further requirements. Merely because the petitioner did not provide an additional declaration in the return that the scheme though approved, the petitioner is unable to produce a copy of the order approved by the Commissioner after long gap of time, cannot be categorized as failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
