Condonation of delay granted, re-assessment order set aside for lack of fresh evidence. The delay condonation application was allowed as the cause of delay was sufficiently explained. However, the re-opening of assessment under Section 21 of ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Condonation of delay granted, re-assessment order set aside for lack of fresh evidence.
The delay condonation application was allowed as the cause of delay was sufficiently explained. However, the re-opening of assessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was set aside by the first appellate authority and affirmed by the tribunal. It was deemed a case of change of opinion without fresh material, as the assessing authority cannot revise an incorrect order without new evidence. The court dismissed the revision, affirming the decision to set aside the re-assessment order.
Issues involved: Delay condonation application, re-opening of assessment u/s 21 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, change of opinion.
Delay Condonation Application: The revision was reported to be beyond time by 19 days, but the cause of delay was sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed. The delay was condoned, and the application was allowed. The office was directed to allot a regular number to the revision.
Re-opening of Assessment u/s 21 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008: The revision was filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal under Section 58 of the Act. The assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 was re-opened under Section 21 on the ground that a relevant decision had been left out. The first appellate authority set aside the revised assessment order, stating it was a case of change of opinion without fresh material. The tribunal affirmed this decision. The assessing authority, under Section 21, cannot re-open or revise an incorrect order without fresh material. The court referred to a Division Bench decision stating that if the initial order is found incorrect, it does not fall under Section 21, as it would be a case of change of opinion without fresh material. The court held that the present case was also a change of opinion, and the first appellate authority and tribunal were correct in setting aside the re-assessment order. The revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
Conclusion: The revision was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the re-assessment order was set aside due to being a case of change of opinion without fresh material.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
