TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is right in law and on facts in holding that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by AO is invalid and quashing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act." 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. It is a case of reopened assessment. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 24.11.2010. The reassessment proceedings were, thereafter, initiated on 14.03.2013, i.e. well within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Learned CIT(A) nevertheless quashed the reassessment proceedings by observing as follows:- "2.2 In this case, assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of IT Act on 24/11/2010. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the reason of escapement of assessment; (vi) whether there is any failure as mentioned in the proviso if assessment is sought to be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant Asst. Year; (vii) in particular, whether there is any the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly necessary for the assessment for that assessment year (viii) if assessment is done u/s.143(1), then whether the provision of section 149 are applicable." 2.4 It is clearly held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 324 that if reasons recorded did not reflect the above mentioned ingredients,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsibility is only of disclosing primary facts. Once he has disclosed all primary facts his duty ends and it is for the assessing authority to draw proper conclusion from it. Even if a wrong conclusion is drawn, then the A.O. cannot reopen the case by issuance of notice u/s.148. Reliance in this regard is placed on Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs ITO, 46 ITR 191 (Supreme Court) and ITO vs Lakhmani Mevaldas, 103 ITR 437 (S.C.). In the instant case the appellant has disclosed material fact of claiming exemption u/s.10B . On the basis of said return of income, the A.O. has after due verification of appellant's claim for exemption u/s10B, has finalized the assessment vide order u/s.143(3) of I.T. Act dtd.24-11-2010. Thus the material fact in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/2013 is also invalid and the same is required to be quashed." 4. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. We find that there is no dispute about the factual position, as very well documented in the orders of the authorities below, that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on 14.03.2013 which was well within four years from the end of the assessment year and it was thus not really required of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate assessee's failure in true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. The CIT(A) was thus clea....