TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come has escaped assessment on account of wrong claims made by the assessee. i(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the reassessment proceedings was bad in law without appreciating that it was the assessee itself which had disclosed the business loss at Rs.12587.79 lacs in the revised return but loss was wrongly taken at Rs.15374.16 lacs while computing total income. i(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the reassessment proceedings was bad in law without appreciating that assessee itself vide letter dated 13.12.2003 confirmed that there was a mistake in computation of total income on account of taking business loss at Rs.15374.16 lacs instead of Rs.12587.79 lacs and expressly consented from the revision of the loss. i(c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the reassessment proceedings was bad in law without appreciating that assessee wrongly claimed deduction of Rs.11.00 crore on account of provision for pension liability which is not allowable u/s 37(i) of the Act. 2. For these and other grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act revealed that the issue of deduction for pension fund contribution had been elaborately disclosed under the head " pension fund contribution"in the body of the assessment order and that all aspects of the deduction allowable u/s 43B of the Act in respect of pension fund contribution had been discussed in great detail in the assessment order and the AO concluded that " The entire amount is allowed as a deduction on the basis of the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court" . It was stated that in its revised return of income the assessee had restricted its claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A to Nil in view of the negative gross total income. Therefore, there was absolutely no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly any material facts and none of the reasons for reopening the assessment could be attributed to any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It was accordingly submitted that the issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act read with section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years was invalid, without jurisdiction and bad in law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O while issuing the notice u/s 148 beyond the period of four years considered figures mentioned in the original return of income and ignored the figures which were mentioned in the revised return, so it was the mistake of the A.O. and not of the assessee. He further submitted that the AO wanted to review his own decision, which was taken by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was not justified. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page nos. 96 and 97 of the assessee' s paper book, which is the copy of the letter dated December 13, 2003 written by the assessee to the AO wherein the objection was raised towards reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following cases:- (i) ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.J.Rao & Anr. [(2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom.)] (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] (iii) Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. [(2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom.)] 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case it is an admitted fact tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. Hence, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings. The notice was not valid and was liable to be quashed." In the present case also the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was beyond the period of four years and the reasons recorded by the AO nowhere stated that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. 10. In another similar issue the Hon' ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. (supra) held as under:- "Where a reassessment is sought to be made after four years the power conferred by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not provide a fresh opportunity to the Assessing Officer to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all materials facts necessary for assessment. There is a difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and mate....