2022 (3) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 16th February, 2015 passed by respondent rejecting petitioner's objections to re-opening. 3. Petitioner filed return for assessment year 2008-09 and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27th December, 2010 assessing petitioner's total income at Rs. 82,53,57,000/-. Petitioner was disallowed deduction under Section 11 of the Act in the assessment order. Petitioner challenged disallowance from denial of deduction before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) who allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (A) respondent filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT dismiss Revenue's appeal and Revenue carried the matter to this court. This court upheld the order of the ITAT an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was failure on the part of petitioner to disclose truly and fully any material fact. Usage of the expression in the reasons that assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly material facts is only to escape the restrictions provided under Section 147 of the Act. In effect there has been no failure to disclose. We say this because the reasons for re-opening expressly provides that income to the extent of Rs. 138,90,74,595/- has to be assessed because petitioner by virtue of an order dated 27th March, 2014 has become ineligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act with effect from 1st April, 2002. It is not alleged that petitioner had actually failed to disclose any material fact. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar made an attempt to justify re-op....