TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, reopening was not justified. The proposition in this judgment squarely applies to the case in hand as well. ITAT has concluded that during the assessment proceeding respondent had furnished actuarial form that showed negative result and the Assessing Officer had made addition during the original assessment proceeding on account of actuarial surplus. Negative reserve was part of document furnished during the assessment and therefore it cannot be said that there was non disclosure of material facts relevant for assessment. ITAT has also observed that AO while passing assessment order has referred to the actuarial report as on 31/3/2003 and hence it cannot be said that AO has not made any inquiry in respect of negative reserve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing in the revenue account of the company was for the year ended 31/3/2003 and is in line with IRDA Regulations and does not in any way represent surplus in the revenue and thus cannot be brought to tax under the Act. Assessing Officer took the view that as per the overriding provision of Section 44 read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, the profit and gains of life insurance business is to be taken to be the annual average of the surplus disclosed in the actuarial valuation report for the year and hence profit and gains of life insurance business of the assessee for Assessment Year 2003-2004 is taken at ₹ 81,000/- and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 21/3/2006. 3. The case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that there was any failure on the part of respondent to disclose fully and truly all material facts on record necessary for assessment and concluded that it was merely a change of opinion. Other observations were also made on merits and ITAT concluded that even on merits, Assessing Officer had gone wrong in passing his order dated 26/11/2010. Aggrieved by this order and assessment, Revenue has preferred this appeal and substantial law of questions proposed are as under: 1. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that the proceedings under Section 147 of the I. T. Act are not valid and holding that the reopening of the assessment was merely based on change of opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fairly full material fact that were necessary for computing of income it was not the case wherein assessment as sought could be reopened. On account of change of opinion of Assessment Officer about the manner of computation to deductions under Section 57 of the Act, reopening was not justified. The proposition in this judgment squarely applies to the case in hand as well. ITAT has concluded that during the assessment proceeding respondent had furnished actuarial form that showed negative result and the Assessing Officer had made addition of ₹ 81,000/- during the original assessment proceeding on account of actuarial surplus. Negative reserve was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
