9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act ['the Act' for short] challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 07.09.2023. 3. Facts in brief are that, the company had filed its return of the income on 13.10.2022. The return was assessed under section 143(1) of the Act, on 21.05.2011. The case was selected for scrutiny of assessment under section 143(3) and assessment order was passed on 28.03.2013. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee-company had debited an amount of Rs. 4,75,495/- towards the profit on sales of barge and since the barge is depreciable asset and the same should have been deducted from the block of assets in the category of ships in the depreciation chart, an amount of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the assessment was reopened for escapement of income. On perusal of the reason recorded, we find that the AO used the word "On going through the case record". Hence it is deduced that there was no new material before the AO which suggest that the income was escaped. As such the reason to believe of the AO is based on same set of documents which amount to change of opinion which is not permissible under the provision of section 147 of the Act. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd (supra) wherein it was held as under: one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words 'reason to believe; failing which section 147 would ge arbitrary power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 143(3) was completed then reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year can only be made if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the materials facts necessary for assessment. In the case on hand, the reopening was made after the expiry of 4 year, however the AO nowhere has brought on record that the assessee failed to disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment. In this regard we find support and guidance form the order of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case Vodafone West Ltd va. ACIT (supra) where it was held as under: In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
