9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) has erred in holding the impugned reopening as bad in the eyes of law being mere change of opinion. It is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that once in the course of finalizing 'regular' assessment, there had been failure on the assessee's part to disclose truly all particulars in the shape of legal and professional expenses, the Assessing Officer had rightly reopened the assessment. Thereafter, the Revenue reiterates the grounds and prays for acceptance of its appeal. 3. The assessee supports the order of the CIT(A) holding the reopening unsustainable in the eyes of law and prays for affirming the same. 4. The assessee is a 'domestic company'. It is engaged in the business of investment, financing and acquisition of propertie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of Rs. 11,27,000/- in the assessee's income already computed on 11.8.2006. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has accepted its arguments challenging validity of the reopening in question by holding it as mere change of opinion as follows: "6. I have gone through the submissions made by the appellant and also the order of the Assessing Officer. It is a fact that the assessment was completed originally on 11.08.2006 accepting the returned income. In the assessment order passed on 30.12.2011, the Assessing Officer stated that he had reason to believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment in view of the assessee offering interest income under business instead of offering it under Income from other so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that these expenses were incurred in the regular course of legal consultations and for the services rendered by legal experts for their advice before the company law board. The Assessing Officer in his order states "It appears that the expenses have been incurred for increase in share capital of the company and hence the same is not an allowable expenditure". The Assessing Officer is not certain that the expenditure was incurred for increase in share capital. It is not known how the Assessing Officer arrived at this conclusion without verifying the details and only stated that "appears". I do not agree with the Assessing Officer regarding the legal expenditure. 8. An examination of the details clearly shows that this expenditure w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport of the legal and professional expenses incurred and the Assessing Officer had examined the same. On the basis of this factual position, he holds that the reopening in question is mere change of opinion. We make it clear that no paper book has been filed by the Revenue controverting the aforesaid finding of fact. Similarly, there is one thing more which we take notice of. The impugned assessment year is 2004-05. The reopening notice in the present case has been issued on 28.3.2011. In other words, it is beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year i.e on 31.3.2005. A perusal of the first proviso to section 148 of the Act makes it clear that in case the reopening is made beyond four years from the end of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
