TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment. It is asserted that, reason must have a link with the formation of belief. See KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] We do not have any hesitation to hold that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is within the four wall of law. This is more so, since the deviation was made by the Assessing Officer only with reference to the assessment year 2005 - '06; whereas in the case of other assessment years, the benefit was granted, since by virtue of the mandate of Section 80(IA) of the Act, it has to flow over a period of 10 years. There is no case for the Revenue that the assessment in respect of the other assessment years concerned has been interdicted for the said reason. Whether the profit gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue. The challenge is against the order passed by the Tribunal deciding the two questions raised in two appeals in respect of the assessment years 2001 - '02 and 2002 - '03 with regard to the 'reopening of the assessment' and also on 'merits'. 2. The sequence of events reveals that the assessee filed returns, followed by revised returns and the assessment came to be finalized in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on the relevant dates. The assessment however came to be re-opened, invoking the power under Section 147 of the Act, read with other relevant provisions by another Assessing Officer; noting that the benefit of deduction in terms of Section 80(IA) was actually disallowed in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue, is in respect of the finding of the Tribunal as to the re-opening; whereas the other appeal i.e. I.T.A. No. 71 of 2011 is in respect of the merit involved. When the matters came up consideration, notice was ordered on all questions of law suggested by the appellant. The questions suggested by the Revenue, as involving substantial questions of law, in I.T.A. No. 41 of 2011 are in the following terms : 1. Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in annulling the reopening proceedings and in setting aside the order of CIT (A) ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that assessment was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised in respect of the subsequent years as well which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The reason mentioned by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment was that, according to him, it was never mentioned by the assessee that they were also engaged in running Diesel Power Generator Unit to generate electricity. The assessee was actually enagaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes, flops etc. and even in the 'Memorandum of Association', it was never mentioned that manufacture and production of electricity as part of the object of the Company. It was accordingly that a finding was rendered, particularly, with reference to the dis-allowance of deduction in respect of the assessment year 2005 - '06, placing reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Courts like CIT Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., 275 ITR 451, CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310, Seimens Information Systeme Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 295 ITR 332 but we are of the view that there is no need to discuss them in detail. The simple fact remains that the assessment was re-opened mainly on the basis of change of opinion particularly after four years and that too when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the relevant facts fully and truly. Since in this case, the assessment has been re-opened after four years, and no material has been brought to our knowledge showing that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the facts and fully and truly, we annul the re-opening proceedings. In this regard, we set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
