TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely When all the facts have been disclosed which were necessary for the assessment at the original stage itself, after four years after scrutiny assessment has been done in this case, cannot be revisited by the AO without pointing out specifically as to which primary evidence was non-disclosed by the assessee during original 143(3) proceedings. Since the AO has failed to even point out remotely as to the failure of the assessee in not disclosing of primary facts during original assessment which was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which is sine qua non and essential jurisdictional fact, for the AO to reopen after four years the scrutiny assessment, thereby in this case, the A.O lacks jurisdiction to reopen and so is fragile in the eyes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of Civil Construction and manufacturing of Construction Materials. According to AO, as per explanation below section 80IA(13) of the Act, which was inserted by Finance Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000, the assessee was not entitled for claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, as the assessee could not satisfy the requisite conditions laid down in sec. 80IA of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who quashed the reassessment proceedings by relying on judicial precedents laid down in the various orders of Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeals before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the reopening itself. We are of the considered opinion that reason to believe postulates a foundation based on information and belief based on reason. After a foundation based on information is made, there still must be some reason which should warrant holding a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. When the original assessment is concluded by scrutiny u/s. 143(3) of the Act and four years have expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, then the twin conditions needs to be satisfied before assuming jurisdiction to reopen that (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income or profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment and (ii) the Assessing Officer must also have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant assessment year. When all the facts have been disclosed which were necessary for the assessment at the original stage itself, after four years after scrutiny assessment has been done in this case, cannot be revisited by the AO without pointing out specifically as to which primary evidence was non-disclosed by the assessee during original 143(3) proceedings. Since the AO has failed to even point out remotely as to the failure of the assessee in not disclosing of primary facts during original assessment which was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which is sine qua non and essential jurisdictional fact, for the AO to reopen after four years the scrutiny assessment, thereby in this case, the A.O lacks jurisdiction to reopen and so is fragi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
