TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion of the AO after scrutiny which may appear to the Revenue to be erroneous and a situation where the AO during the scrutiny assessment does not examine a particular claim of the assessee altogether. The later will follow within the purview of reopening of assessment, particularly when the notice is issued within a period of 4 years but the former may not. Since we uphold the Tribunal's decision on the invalidity of the reopening, the other issues on merits need not be gone into. No question of law arises. - Income Tax Appeal No.854 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - Akil Kureshi And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N.C. Mohanty a/w Ms. Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Mr. Jay Bhansali ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny assessment of this return. He passed order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 10.12.2010 determining the assessee's total income at ₹ 65.88 crores (rounded off). 4. To reopen said assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 28.02.2013. This notice thus, was issued within a period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. In order to issue the notice, the Assessing Officer had recorded following reasons: The assessee during the year had acquired program / films rights of ₹ 99,05,07,680/. And the same was debited to P L Account under the head operational expenses. Since, the film rights are an intangible asset, one fourth of the same i.e. ₹ 24,76,26,920/can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct relation to the assessee's valuation i.e. TV programs and film rights. The Tribunal noted that the relevant details were submitted by the assessee under its letter dated 24.11.2010. The Tribunal noted that these questions arose in the context of note no.(7) to the financial statement submitted by the assessee. This note on accounts was also acknowledged by the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment. This had relation to the consistent method adopted by the assessee for valuation of its inventories of TV programs and film rights. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that the only relevance of the said questions raised by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment, was in relation of the assessee& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer raised correct queries and came to the correct conclusion or not, in the context of reopening of assessment, would be of no consequence. There is a vital difference between a conclusion of the Assessing Officer after scrutiny which may appear to the Revenue to be erroneous and a situation where the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment does not examine a particular claim of the assessee altogether. The later will follow within the purview of reopening of assessment, particularly when the notice is issued within a period of 4 years but the former may not. Since we uphold the Tribunal's decision on the invalidity of the reopening, the other issues on merits need not be gone into. No question of law arises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
