TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the A.O. has not brought any tangible materials on record to indicate that there was an omission or failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment relying on the decision of Hon'ble S.C. in the case of Kalvinator India [320 ITR 561]. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the I.T. Act are not valid holding that the reopening of assessment was merely based on change of opinion relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as all the relevant facts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of income. The assessee attached computation of taxable income, copy of annual account and audited report. Hence, there is no failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The assessee requested to drop the proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee also contended that the return of income filed on 24.11.2003 be treated as return filed u/s 148 of the Act. The following reasons were recorded and supplied to the assessee: "During the A.Y. 03-04, the assessee has negative reserves of Rs. 1,55,05,500/- This negative reserve has not formed part of the actuarial surplus which is not in order. To that extent, the actuarial surplus has been understated. The assessee not offering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. Thus, the income of assessee was revised to the tune of Rs. 1,55,05,000/- by AO in its assessment order dated 26.11.2010 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. Aggrieved, by the order of AO the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and succeeded therein. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order AO and argued that though the re-opening was made after four year from the end of AY as there was tangible material for reason to believe that negative reserve of assessee e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(page 96 of PB). It was argued that re-opening was based on the basis of change of opinion. On merit it was argued that this issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. (ITA No.711of 2011 dated 20July 2015. It was argued that similar issue arose in AY 2005-06 and the assessee filed appeal before Tribunal. The Tribunal on the basis of order of High Court in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co (supra) remanded the issue to the file of AO vide order dated 23.05.2014. The AO in pursuance of order of Tribunal deleted the additions on account of negative reserve its order 30.11.2016. On the basis of order for AY 2005- 06 the similar relief was granted to the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit Petn. No. 71 of 2005[343 ITR 183] The ld. AR of the assessee made more emphasis in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (supra) and Titanor Components Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT & Ors (supra) on jurisdiction issue and in the case of ICICI Prudential Case (supra) on merit of the case. It was argued that the reopening is invalid even otherwise the ground of appeal raised by revenue is covered in favour of assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have seen that during the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished actuarial report Form-I, which shows the negative reserve. The AO made the addition of Rs. 81,000/- during the original assessment p....