TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s return of income declaring total income at Rs. 5,12,96,04,406/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and, thereafter, the income was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') at an income of Rs. 17,25,09,62,611/- vide order dated 30.12.2009. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2013 to tax the income of Rs. 15,41,18,249/- in respect of house property tax which had allegedly escaped assessment. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee stated that the return filed by it earlier may be treated as returned filed in response to notice issued u/s 148/-. The assessee also asked for a copy of reasons which was duly supplied to the assessee. The reasons for reopening were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT (A)] is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the contention of the appellant that reopening of the assessment is barred by limitation in view of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eyes of law, as the conditions and procedures prescribed under the statute have not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the reopening was bad in law for the reason that there was no suppression of any material fact by the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings and the information on the basis of which the reopening proceedings were initiated was already before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. It was submitted that it was merely a change of opinion and, therefore, it was bad in law. The Ld. Authorized Representative relied on numerous judicial precedents in support of his contention that the reopening itself was invalid void ab initio. 3.1 On the merits of the case, the Ld. Authorized Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lized that it was a mistake as it had been wrongly shown as Liability whereas there was no liability for Assessment Year 2005-06. Therefore, the tax auditor has rectified this mistake by writing back this amount in the year under consideration. It was submitted that it did not affect any tax liability of the assessee as same amount had been disallowed in one year and had been allowed in the present assessment year for rectification purpose. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO reopened the case merely on the ground that in the computation of income, the assessee had claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 15,41,18,249/- pertaining to property tax relating to rectification entry of Assessment Year 2005-06 without appreciating the fact that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of Rs. 15,41,18,249/- in respect of property tax was disallowed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 in terms of provisions of Section 43B of the Act in the computation of income for that Assessment Year. However, in the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2006-07 it was realized by the auditor that a mistake had been committed and that this amount has been wrongly shown as a liability whereas no such liability existed for Assessment Year 2005-06. The Auditor rectified this mistake by writing back this amount in Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer, not only initiated the reassessment proceedings, but also made an addition of this amount under the notion that assessee had claimed a deduction in t....