TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y did not book the same into account while computing the profit. Where on consideration of material on record, one view conclusively is taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to re-open the assessment based on very same material with a view to take another view. In our view, this is a case where the assessment is sought to be re-opened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. There is no new material to which reference is to be found and the entire basis for re-opening the assessment is the material which was available before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings of petitioner, Parth and Devki and respondent no.1 is the common Assessing Officer. In this case, it cannot be postulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. In the case of petitioner, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31st March 2003. The proposed re-opening indisputably is after expiry of 4 years from end of assessment year. We have considered the reasons recorded for re-opening and issuance of notice under Section 148 and in our view, it does not make out any case of petitioner failing to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year. In fact, there is not even an allegation that there has been a failure on the part of petitioner. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar relied upon a judgment of this Court in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (2) (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 59 (Bombay) to submit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and these transactions were also recorded in the books of account of Parth and Devki, which were found during search related proceedings. Ofcourse, both Parth and Devki have subsequently denied these transactions as theirs and contended that these were petitioner s transactions. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has cited more particularly from the assessments of Parth and Devki and has made it the basis for re-opening. Therefore, as respondents have not crossed the threshold for re-opening after a period of 4 years, i.e., discharge the onus of proving failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts for petitioner s assessment, the notice dated 30th March 2007 issued under Section 148 of the Act, has to be set aside on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view conclusively is taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to re-open the assessment based on very same material with a view to take another view. In our view, this is a case where the assessment is sought to be re-opened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. There is no new material to which reference is to be found and the entire basis for re-opening the assessment is the material which was available before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings of petitioner, Parth and Devki and respondent no.1 is the common Assessing Officer. In this case, it cannot be postulated that the condition precedent to the re-opening of the assessment beyond a period of 4 years has been fulfilled. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
