TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue in the present appeal is as under:- (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ITAT was justified in the eyes of law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to comply with the precondition mentioned in Rule 5D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for registration u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case ITAT was justified in the eyes of law in holding that the reopening of the assessment was wholly unjustified? (3) Whether the impugned order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse both on law and facts? 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the ITAT erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eproduced hereinbelow: A) Order dated 15th September, 2015 passed by CIT(A):- "4.21 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no doubt that the copy of audited statement of donations received for the AY 2007-08 was available at the time of completion of original assessment.. Honorable Supreme Court in case of CIT V Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association 2001 247 ITR 201 SC has held that if the details required to complete the assessment were available at the time of original assessment then there is no requirement to invoke the reassessment proceedings. The case of the Appellant is squarely covered by this decision of the Honorable Supreme Court and accordingly the addition of Rs. 16,87,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds are filed, but, again no ground have been taken to challenge the quashing of the reassessment proceedings in the matter. The assessee for abundant precaution has filed application under Rule 27 of the I.T. Rules. The crux of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly show that it is a case of mere change of opinion and that reassessment have been made after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, after passing of the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. There is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose all the facts truly and correctly which are required for passing of the assessment order. Therefore, reopening of the assessment was wholly unjustified and have been rightly quashed ....