TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Petitioner's objections to the reopening. 2. Admittedly, in this case, a notice to reopen has been issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed. Therefore, in view of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, Respondent has to show failure on the part of Petitioner to disclose truly and fully material facts required for assessment for the assessment year. The reasons recorded for reopening read as under: "Reasons recorded for reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 The return of income was filed by the assessee company on 31.10.2003, declaring total income at Rs. 71,27,071/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80 HHC amounti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner to truly and fully disclose any material fact. The Assessing Officer is relying on the same material facts already filed and considered by the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order. Moreover, the entire basis for reopening as could be seen from the reasons is change of opinion and as has been held time and again by various Courts, Respondent can not propose to reopen assessment on the basis of change of opinion. Moreover, it is quire clear that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order considering materials on record and taken a conclusive view. To reopen the assessment based on same material with a view to take another view, is not permissible. Moreover, in this case, there is simply a general statement in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him. The Revenue contends that it is open to him to do so, and on that basis to reopen the assessment under Section 147 (b). Reliance is placed on Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT, (1976) 102 ITR 287, where a Bench of learned Judges of this Court observed that a case where income had escaped assessment due to the "oversight, inadvertence or mistake" of the Income- tax Officer must fall within Section 34 (1) (b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. It appears to us, with respect, that the proposition is stated too widely and travels further than the statute warrants insofar as it can be said to lay down that if, on reappraising the material considered by him during the original assessment, the ITO discovers that he has committed an error in co....