2015 (11) TMI 1838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the reassessment proceedings were without acquiring valid jurisdiction and should have quashed reassessment proceedings and the additions made in such proceedings. 2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,37,238/- being the alleged excess claim of depreciation made by the Appellant." 2. This is a case of reopened assessment. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2010. Subsequently, on 21.06.2013, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by recording the following reasons :- "In this case the assessee filed his return of income on declaring Nil income on 17.09.2008. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 09.12.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allowed. There is an escapement of income of Rs. 3,37,238/-. The assessment made u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act is required to be reopened." 3. The assessee objected to the reopening, by raising, inter alia, following legal issues :- "The assessee submits that the reopening is being proposed to be done of a scrutiny assessment, which was passed u/s. 143(3) beyond a period of four years, and hence, the proviso to sec. 147 comes into play. As per the requirement of the proviso, it is for your goodself to prove that the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all marital facts for the purposes of assessment. The assessee submits that there is no scope for your goodself to hold that there was no full and true disclosure of all relevant facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Hence, the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all materiel facts as has been done by the assessee, and therefore also, the notice is bad in law and the reassessment proceedings should be dropped. The assessee submits that thee reassessment proceeding taken up by your goodself would amount to mere change of opinion on the same facts, which were scrutinized by your predecessor. The assessee further submits that the change of opinion is not permissible for the purpose of reopening a scrutiny assessment, and therefore also, the notice u/s. 148 is bad. The assessee relies on the under-mentioned case laws which lay down that reopening beyond a period of four years cannot be done where the assessee has disclosed fully and t....