TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) has erred in upholding the order u/s. 143(3)/148. The appellant contends that there is no tangible material brought on record for alleging income escaping assessment. Consequently, the reassessment order is wrong and bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. 2. The appellant contends that there is no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing full and true particulars of income. Hence, the reassessment is wrong and bad in lawand has to be annulled. 3. The re-assessment proceedings are based on mere change of opinion on an already completed assessment u/s. 143(3) and therefore are without jurisdiction and should be cancelled. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded back while computing the income under special provision of the Act. These amount should be added back to the income of the assessee. (ii) While making computations under special provisions of the Act, an amount of Rs. 5442191/- on account of deferred tax was reduced from the book profit as negative adjustment as per clause (a) of explanation of sub sec. (2) of the Act. This deduction was not admissible under section 115JB. In view of the above facts, I have therefore, reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material fact, necessary for assessment and by claiming wrong deductions, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment." 6. A perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reason of either omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income or omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions are conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or reassessment beyond a period of four years. Such duty would not extend beyond true and full disclosure of material facts. Once such primary facts are before the Assessing Officer, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1983 it could not have assumed that such a legislative amendment was going to be made in the year 1986 with retrospective effect from the year 1974. In the facts of the present case, it could never be said by any stretch of imagination that in the year 1983 when the assessee filed return claiming investment allowance on the capitalisation of interest paid after the date on which the machinery was first installed and put to use, the assessee had failed to disclose all material facts. On the contrary, the assessee would have got the benefit of the entire interest amount for the post-installation period as revenue expenditure which would have been much higher than the amount of investment allowance and depreciation allowance taken together." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer might have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. But that in itself was not sufficient for reopening an assessment beyond the period of four years. Beyond the period of four years when an assessment is sought to be reopened, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. In fact, the retrospective amendment would negate the inference sought to be drawn of the failure to disclose material facts. In so far as the business development expenditure of Rs. 10.79 lakhs was concerned, it was also evident from the order of assessment that the claim of the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the amount was added back to the income. Si....