TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g materials on record and taken a conclusive view. To reopen the assessment based on same material with a view to take another view, is not permissible. Moreover, in this case, there is simply a general statement in the reasons that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. In our view, this statement is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to section 147 of the Act. According to the reasons recorded, there was an error on the part of AO because the qualifying amount for deduction under section 80HHC ought to have been determined after allowing set-off of brought forward losses against the adjusted profit of the business. An erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to ₹ 71,27,071/-. The case was scrutinized u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.11.2005, assessing the total income at Rs. NIL after allowing deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the I.T. Act amounting to ₹ 30,48,339/- and set-off of brought forward losses to the extent of available income of ₹ 1,54,98,742/-. In the assessment order, the Book Profit was determined at ₹ 47,91,480/- u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act after allowing deduction u/s.80 HHC of the Act amounting to ₹ 30,48,339/-. 2. It is now observed that the qualifying amount for deduction u/s.80 HHC ought to have been determined after allowing set-off of brought forward losses against the adjusted profit of the business of ₹ 1,01,05,832/-. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is simply a general statement in the reasons that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. In our view, this statement is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to section 147 of the Act. 4. Further according to the reasons recorded, there was an error on the part of Assessing Officer because the qualifying amount for deduction under section 80HHC ought to have been determined after allowing set-off of brought forward losses against the adjusted profit of the business. An error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not give power to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. 5. This Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the ITO discovers that he has committed an error in consequence of which income has escaped assessment, it is open to him to reopen the assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kamal Kumar Singh s case (supra), A. Raman and Co. s case (supra) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 831, and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji s case (supra) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law. 4. This view has been followed by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Dell India (P.) Ltd. vs. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
