TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereafter "the Act") for Assessment Year 2011-12, complaining that the original return [which had declared Rs. 49,67,00,907/- and subsequently revised to Rs. 49,23,54,662/-] was assessed under scrutiny under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31.12.2015, at Rs. 61,92,17,179/-. The impugned reassessment notice in this case was issued on 31.03.2018; subsequently, the Assessing Officer [hereafter referred to as "the AO"] furnished the "reasons for reopening the case....." to the assessee. Those reasons inter alia states as follows : "Reasons for reopening the case of M/s. FIS Global Business Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. (PAN-AAACH2815H) for the FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12: 1. Brief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n gain of Rs. 1,40,50.422/- on loan balance receivable from Certegy needs to be view in the light of applicable Accounting Standards issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). In this respect it is imperative to note that Accounting Standard II titled 'Effects of Changes in Exchange Rates' acknowledges that forex gain is to be recorded as income. The relevant portion of the AS 11 issued by the ICAI which is applicable in this case is being reproduce below for the ready reference: 'Recognition of Exchange Diffrences 13. Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on reporting enterprise's monetary items at rates different from those at which they were initially recorded during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or as fixed capital, such profit or loss would be of capital nature.' There is, thus. a clear requirement that the forex gain be recorded specifically as income in the financial statements. However, a perusal on the same reveals that the assessee has failed to make fair disclosure in terms of the requirements of AS 1 I and as such concealed information from the at the time of assessment. On the above facts, I have reasons to believe that an income amounting to Rs. 1,40,50,4221- has escaped assessment. In view of the above, the provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 of section 147 are applicable to the facts of this case and this is a fit case to be reopened u/s 147 of the Act for reassessment. In this case a return of income was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the assessee. The assessee has to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The import of Explanation I was noticed in a judgement 3 Info tech Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom) in the following observations: " ... In other words. an assessee cannot rest content merely with the production of account books or other evidence during the course of the assessment proceedings and challenge the reopening of the assessment on the ground that if the Assessing Officer were to initiate a line of enquiry he could with due diligence have arrived at material evidence. The primary obligation to disclose is on the assessee and the burden of making a full and true disclosure of material facts does not shif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Gain on Certegy which is not an allowable expense. All the necessary facts on the basis of which the claims to a deduction are founded must be disclosed. As the assesse failed to do so, reopening of the assessment is to be done on the ground that assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. *" 3. It is urged that the Revenue is doing no more than re-visiting the merits of the original scrutiny assessment which it was especially barred from conducting afresh. Learned counsel relied upon the previous Division Bench's judgment in Carlton Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax officer & Ors., (2009) 318 ITR 295 and Torrent Power S.E.C. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (2017) 392 ITR 330 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC. Clearly, therefore, there was no new or fresh material before the Assessing Officer except the opinion of the Revenue audit party. 10. Since it is settled law that mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for issuing of a notice under section 147/148 of the Act, therefore, we do not propose to burden out judgment with the said judgments. In fact, as stated above, counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this principle of law." 6. This Court is of the opinion that Carlton (supra) concludes the issue in the present case; the audit objection merely is an information. As reiterated in Kelvinator (supra) by the Supreme Court....