9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter, an order dated 12th December 2007 rejecting petitioner's objections to reopen for A.Y.-2000-2001 came to be passed. These three notices and the order are impugned in this petition. 2. Section 147 of the Act which provides for re-opening of assessment, in the proviso makes it clear that where an assessment has been made under Section 143(3), no action shall be taken under Section 147 after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the reasons in support of the notice seeking to reopen assessment, that will certainly not be fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The Court held "However, if from the reasons, no case of failure to disclose is made out, then certainly the assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be ultra vires, being in excess of the jurisdictional restraints imposed by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act". 4. The point that emerges from the reasons recorded for re-opening petitioner's assessment concerns transactions of two clients of petitioner namely: Parth Investment Consultants Pvt Ltd. (Parth) and Devki Finance & Trading Pvt Ltd. (Devki). Both these had effected share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the same assessment years in the hands of another party, i.e, petitioner. 6. It appears from the reasons that the Assessing Officer has decided to reopen petitioner's case for A.Y.-2000-2001 under Section 148 of the Act because of retraction by Parth and Devki and before passing a block assessment order in the case of petitioner for the period 1st April 1991 to 23rd March 2001 on 26th September 2003. In the case of assessment of Parth and Devki, the Assessing Officer has recorded their retraction and dismissed those retractions as after thought because the transactions were recorded by Parth and Devki in their own books of account but they did not book the same into account while computing the profit. Where on consideration of material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
