TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid re-opening of assessment under Income Tax Act; Lack of disclosure; Jurisdiction issue; Court rules in favor.</h1> <h3>National Dairy Development Board Versus DCIT</h3> National Dairy Development Board Versus DCIT - [2013] 353 ITR 538 Issues:1. Validity of re-opening assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beyond the prescribed time limit.2. Requirement of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment.3. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to re-open assessment based on specific grounds.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of re-opening assessment under section 147The petitioner challenged the notice re-opening assessment for the year 2003-2004 issued beyond the four-year period. The Assessing Officer must have two-fold satisfaction for re-opening, which includes income escaping assessment and failure to disclose material facts. The notice was challenged on the grounds of jurisdictional validity.Issue 2: Failure to disclose material factsThe petitioner argued that there was no failure to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons recorded for re-opening did not indicate any such failure on the part of the petitioner. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer was based on material disclosed by the petitioner and subsequent legislative amendments, rather than a failure to disclose necessary facts.Issue 3: Jurisdiction to re-open assessment based on specific groundsThe Assessing Officer sought to re-open assessment based on two grounds: deduction of provision written back and depreciation claim. The first ground was based on material disclosed by the petitioner, and the second ground was due to a legislative amendment. However, there was no indication of failure to disclose material facts. The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to re-open assessment on these grounds.The judgment concluded that the re-opening of assessment was not valid as the condition of failure to disclose material facts was not met. The Explanation 2(c) of section 147 was rejected as it does not override the proviso to section 147. Additionally, the second proviso to section 147 excludes income subject to appeal from re-assessment. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice re-opening the assessment was quashed and set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
