Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether reopening of the assessment under section 147 was valid when the material forming the basis of reassessment was already on record and there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Issue (i): Whether reopening of the assessment under section 147 was valid when the material forming the basis of reassessment was already on record and there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Analysis: The negative reserve was part of the actuarial report furnished during the original assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had considered the actuarial material and made an addition in the original assessment. In the absence of any fresh tangible material, the reassessment was founded only on a different view of the same material. Reassessment cannot be sustained where the escapement allegation rests on a mere change of opinion and there is no shown failure by the assessee to make full and true disclosure of primary facts necessary for assessment.
Conclusion: The reopening under section 147 was invalid and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment could not be sustained because the jurisdictional condition for reopening was not met, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 147 cannot be based on a mere change of opinion when the relevant primary facts were already disclosed and no fresh tangible material is shown.