TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger & Sons Ltd. (S.C.) (222 I.T.R. 344). 3. That the order of ld. CIT(A) being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the annulment of the assessment order by the ld. CIT(A) on various grounds, and mainly for the reason that the reopening was done after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year which is not permissible in the light of the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act") without bringing on record that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment, for that assessment year. 3. The facts in brief borne out from the record are that the assessee is a Limited Company listed on the Stock Exchange and derives income from Plasma Coating on various machinery parts. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.1.2006. The DCIT, Range-VI initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act on 31.3.2010 with a view to tax a sum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of original assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed balance sheet declaring forfeiture of the impugned amount, therefore, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of all material in this regard. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has annulled the assessment order passed under section 147 read with 144 of the Act after holding that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued without jurisdiction. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the submission that the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in case of C.I.T v. Sundram Iyenger (T.V.) and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) in which it has been held that if an amount is received in the course of a trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount become the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right and when such a thing happens, common sense demands that the amount should be treated as income of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has also submitted that the objections for reopening of the assessment filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer were also not disposed of. Therefore, the assessment framed without disposing of the objections raised by the assessee deserves to be set aside in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (supra) in which it has been held that the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the objections filed before him by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended with respect to the applicability of provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act that this section governs the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and not for reopening of the assessment, which is one aspect and governed by section 147 of the Act and after recording reasons for reopening of the assessment, notice under section 148 of the Act is to be issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income. Therefore, provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of extending the time limit for reo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licants to deposit the call money and thereafter assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed. While recording reasons for reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer has recorded various facts but has not made out a case for reopening of assessment that any particular income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee. 12. Reliance was also placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee upon the judgment of various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Ashok Kumar Sarraf v. CIT (supra), in which it has been categorically held that where assessment was reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording any reason of assessee's failure to make fully and truly disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessment, notice under section 148 of the Act issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation under the proviso to section 147 of the Act and hence without jurisdiction, therefore, the assessment framed consequent thereto deserves to be annulled. The relevant observations of the jurisdiction....