TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. First we will take up the Revenue appeal in ITA No. 1634/Hyd/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 in respect of M/s. Navionics Systems (P) Ltd. The ground raised by the Revenue is as below: "(1) The CIT(A) ought to have not concluded that there is change of opinion of the Assessing Officer despite the fact the assessee has not complied the provisions for allowing exemption. Thus, the CIT(A) erred in treating the case as null and void ignoring the explanations to 2nd proviso to section 147." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee- company, engaged in the business of software development, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 15.10.2006 claiming exemption of Rs. 68,05,484 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 143(3) Nil Add: 1. Disallowance u/s. 10B Rs. 31,34,004 2. Donation disallowed Rs. 6,89,443 38,23,447 Against this the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) challenging reopening of assessment. 5. The CIT(A) relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1) and also on the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT (287 ITR 25). The Madras High Court in the case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited Vs ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 25, held that the power to reopen an assessment was not conferred by the Legislature with the intention to enable an Assessing Officer to reopen the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not right, as it was based on the audit objection or change in the method of valuation specially when all the materials were placed before the AO were examined before the passing of the original order dated [an 30, 1998. The AO contended that income had escaped assessment as there was difference between the value of the property adopted for the purpose of computing capital gains, the income tax returns and the value of the property mentioned in the wealth tax returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the value of the property adopted by the assessee for the purpose of wealth tax did not stop him for contending otherwise in the proceedings for calculating tax on capital gains and that the adoption of a certain value for wealth tax purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee u/s. 10B of the Act was granted. Notice for reopening of assessment was given on 17.2.2011. In our opinion, there is no failure to truly and fully disclose all material facts for the purpose of assessment by the assessee. It is only a question of drawing inference from these facts. The inference from the available documents on record has to be drawn by the Assessing Officer. Since the AO did not draw the correct inference or failed to draw inference, it does not mean that there was non-disclosure of all facts by the assessee. Being so, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are completely in agreement with the finding of the CIT(A) and he has not committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the assess....