2021 (10) TMI 1211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. 2. During the course of assessment respondent furnished copy of actuarial report and abstract of the company as on 31/3/2003. From the examination of actuarial report, Assessing Officer noted that the total surplus disclosed by actuarial evaluation made in accordance with the Income Tax Act was Rs. 81,000/-. Respondent was asked to explain why this amount of Rs. 81,000/- should not be taxed as total income of assessee. Assessee filed a reply and also contended that allocation of bonus of Rs. 81,000/- appearing in the revenue account of the company was for the year ended 31/3/2003 and is in line with IRDA Regulations and does not in any way represent surplus in the revenue and thus cannot be brought to tax under the Act. Assessing Offic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vision for negative reserve amounting to Rs. 1,55,05,000/- 5. Aggrieved by this order of Assessing Officer respondent preferred an appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) allowed the appeal by order dated 28/8/2013 holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act were not valid. This order was impugned before ITAT by Revenue. ITAT by its order dated 23/6/2017 dismissed the appeal of Revenue. ITAT also noted that Assessing Officer did not bring any tangible material on record to show that there was any failure on the part of respondent to disclose fully and truly all material facts on record necessary for assessment and concluded that it was merely a change of opinion. Other observations were also made on merits and ITAT concluded t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Officer while reopening under Section 148 of the Act.   7. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant and Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent and with their assistance, we have also perused the impugned order. 8. This Court in a recent judgment in Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 131 taxmann.com 52 (Bombay) has held that where assessment was not sought to be reopened on reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fairly full material fact that were necessary for computing of income it was not the case wherein assessment as sought could be reopened. On account of change of opinion of Assessment Office....