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>Reassessment Dismissed: Court Rules Reassessment Targeting Original Order Unjustified, Upholds Lower Authorities' Decision.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus Flothern Engineers Pvt. Limited</h3> The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Versus Flothern Engineers Pvt. Limited - TMI Issues:1. Validity of reassessment order based on subsequent Supreme Court decision2. Quashing of assessment passed under Section 147 of the ActAnalysis:Issue 1: Validity of reassessment order based on subsequent Supreme Court decisionThe case involved the assessment year 2001-02 where the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. Initially, the deduction was disallowed in the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, which was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment under Section 148 based on a Supreme Court decision regarding carry forward unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the reassessment to be a review and not a failure to disclose material facts, thus allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing precedents and upheld the decision. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the order subject to revision should be the one granting relief to the assessee, not the original assessment order.Issue 2: Quashing of assessment passed under Section 147 of the ActThe High Court highlighted that the revision of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was based on the original order passed in 2003, which had already been appealed and attained finality. The subsequent revision order was challenged by the Revenue, questioning the relief granted to the assessee. However, the High Court noted that if any revision was warranted, it should have been directed at the order granting relief, not the original assessment order. As the Revenue failed to justify the revision under Section 147 of the Act concerning the order dated 18.05.2005, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the Revenue, without costs.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of revising the correct order and not reopening assessments that had already been finalized.
TaxTMI 