TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Assessment Year 2004-05 vide his order dated 04.11.2011. 2. The only issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A in quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act as bad in law. For this, revenue has raised following three grounds: "1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 as bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) as not justified in holding that conditions laid down in the 1st proviso of section 147 was not fulfilled, despite the assessee not disclosing true and full material facts as to the nature of income derived from its property. 3. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raisal of the facts already on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the assessee furnished full particulars of service charges received for facilities at the time of filing of return and complete examination was carried out by the AO while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act originally vide his order dated 17.11.2006. Admittedly, the assessment is beyond four years and there is no whisper in the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act or in the reassessment order framed u/s. 147/148/143(3) of the Act dated 04.11.2011 that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Once this is the factual position, we are of the view that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO in the impugned order. Assessment of service charges under the head profits & gains of business in the regular assessment therefore appeared to be in conformity with the stand regularly followed by the revenue in the earlier and succeeding assessments. On these facts therefore, I find that after conducting enquiries in the original assessment with regard to nature of business carried on; the AO had consciously assessed service charges derived by the appellant from operating and maintaining a business centre, under the head profits & gains of business as opposed to income from house property. At the time when the regular assessment was completed; decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sambhu Investment (P) Ltd had already been r....