2017 (9) TMI 1151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... XXIV, New Delhi for the asstt. year 2005-06 on the grounds interalia that :- 1. "Holding that the case is reopened on the basis of change of opinion. When it was opened on basis of material came by subsequently from the record. 2. Deleting the addition on excessive allowance under the head Repair and Maintenance amounting to Rs. 55,12,474/- which escaped assessment. 3. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal" 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : originally assessment was completed on 27.9.2007 at the declared income of Rs. 57,84,820/-. Thereafter A.O. after noticing the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,62,632/- debited under the head ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Supreme Court)/(2007) ITR 500 (Supreme Court)/(2007) 210 CTR 30 (Supreme Court) 3. Adani Exports vs. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) 4. Yuvraj v. Union of India (315 ITR 84) (Supreme Court) 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground No. 1 and 2 6. To proceed further it is necessary to reproduce the reasons recorded by the A.O. for reopening of the assessment available at page 35 of the paper book, for ready perusal as under :- "Reason for belief that income has escaped tax :- The assessee filed return of in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r reopening was already available with the A.O. during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid disputed facts and circumstances of this case and the assessment addressed by the Ld. representatives of the party to the appeal, the first legal question arises that "as to whether A.O. was empowered to reopen the assessment after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years asstt. year 2005-06." 9. When we note that the assessment was completed in this case u/s 143(3) on 27.9.2007 and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all relevant facts necessary for assessment, the A.O. was empowered to reopen the assessment within a period ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns recorded by the A.O. to reopen the assessment are also silent if there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. This proposition of law has been settled by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 and in the case cited as Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 308 ITR 38. 12. Ratio of both the aforesaid judgments is that A.O. is not empowered to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year particularly when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Proviso to section 147 itself is categoric....