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>Appeal dismissed due to lack of reasonable belief for reopening assessment</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai Versus M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd.</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai Versus M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05.Analysis:The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 6th February, 2015, concerning Assessment Year 2004-05. The key question raised by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening done by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with Section 147 of the I.T. Act despite substantial evidence indicating otherwise. The Tribunal's order in favor of the respondent assessee highlighted the lack of reasonable belief in the Assessing Officer to issue the reopening notice for A.Y. 2004-05. Additionally, it noted that the reassessment order did not confirm the addition based on the reasonable belief for reopening, instead making an addition on an issue not covered in the reasons recorded for reopening.The judgment references the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236, which clarified that the Assessing Officer must assess/reassess the income that escaped assessment based on the reasonable belief for reopening. Failure to reassess the income that formed the basis for reopening renders the reassessment order invalid. Consequently, the question raised by the Revenue was deemed academic, as per the court's interpretation of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act.The court concluded that the question did not present a substantial question of law and, therefore, was not entertained. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the importance of the Assessing Officer reassessing the income that led to the reopening of assessment to ensure the validity of the reassessment order under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
