9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t" for brevity) for reopening the concluded regular assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the order dated 18th September 2019 rejecting objections. 2. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of media consultancy and strategy through campaign organization, etc., by using data analysis. 3. On 30th November 2012, Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 returning a loss of Rs. 3,11,13,560/-. In the said return Petitioner gave details of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business loss from Assessment Year 2004-05 till 2010-11 while arriving at the income. However, Petitioner was liable under Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) for Rs. 28,98,428/- being tax payable under Section 115JB on book profit of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings passed an assessment order dated 28th March 2016 under Section 143(3) of the said Act assessing income of Rs. 1,39,41,070/-. 5. It needs to be noted that Respondent No.1 while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 28th March 2016 had not granted any set off of brought forward business losses or unabsorbed depreciation. 6. Almost 3 years later, Petitioner received a notice dated 27th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the said Act for Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby, Respondents sought to reopen the completed scrutiny assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. On 17th April 2019, Petitioner requested Respondent No.1 to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. On 26th April 2019, Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve that income has escaped assessment. However, the exercise of such power is circumscribed by the first proviso. It is now well settled that unless any income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction for re-assessment. 10. The criteria for reopening of assessment after a period of four years are no longer res Integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ananta landmark (P) Ltd. v/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 131 taxmann.com 52 (Bombay) wherein this Court held that where assessment was not sought to be reopened on the reasonable belief that income had escaped assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed depreciation, whichever is less". From the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1, it appears that there was no tangible material for Respondent No.1 to conclude that income had escaped assessment. 12. For the aforesaid reasons the Assessing Officer has acted in excess of the limit of his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in the exercise of powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the said Act. Accordingly, Petitioner would be entitled to succeed in this proceeding. 13. We, therefore, pass the following order:- (i) The impugned notice dated 27th March, 2019 (Exhibit "A") and the order dated 18th September, 2019 rejecting objections (Exhibit "AF") issued by Respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2012-13 are quashed and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
