TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance of Rs.49,599/- made by the Assessing Officer out of Depreciation on Plant & Machinery. 3. Upholding Addition of Rs.7,100/- made by the Assessing Officer out of interest of Chola Mandalam, DBS Finance Limited. 4. The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous in law as well as in facts." Also, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening of the concluded assessment u/s.143(3) dt.6-12-10 in absence of any fresh/new material, be treated merely on change of opinion on the same material facts, is not permissible as per law, is liable to be quashed, as held in Kelvinator (2010) (SC); Techspan India (P) Ltd (2018) (SC); Marico Ltd (2020) (SC)." "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, initiation of reassessment u/s.147/148 is invalid; bad in law, since it is beyond 4 years and assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.6-12-10 and there is no allegation in the reasons recorded which indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary for the assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.6- 12-10; initiation u/s.147/l48 cannot be m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.09.2014. However, it was for the reason that the assessee did not comply with the notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act that the A.O was constrained to frame the assessment vide his order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.03.2015, wherein the income of the assessee was reassessed at Rs.36,23,390/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 8. As the assessee has assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of the impugned assessment, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. 9. It is the claim of the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 dated 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gathered beyond any doubt that the reopening of the concluded assessment of the assessee was taken recourse to by the A.O on the basis of a mere "change of opinion" on the basis of the same set of facts as were there before his predecessor while framing the original assessment and not on the basis of any fresh tangible material which had come to his notice after conclusion of the original assessment that was framed vide order passed u/s.143(3), dated 06.12.2010. As stated by the A.O in the "reasons to believe" the case of the assessee firm was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, for the reason that its income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for three-fold reasons, viz. (i) the offering of the income surrendered in the course of the survey proceedings as business income and claiming of interest and remuneration as a deduction against the same was not as per the mandate of law; (ii) there depreciation on truck was wrongly claimed at a higher rate i.e @40%; and (iii) the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source on interest paid on loan to a non-banking finance company rendered its claim for deduction of the same liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad issued Notice u/s 143(2), dated 26.09.2014. Also, a perusal of the "reasons to believe" clearly reveals that it is neither a fact nor the case of the department that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration i.e AY 2008-09. Rather, a perusal of the reasons forming the very basis for reopening of the assessee's case reveals that there is no allegation of the A.O that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment because of failure on its part to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for its assessment. On the contrary, the A.O holding a belief that the assessee's claim for certain deductions had either been wrongly and/or excessively allowed by his predecessor, thus, for the said reason had reopened its concluded assessment. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are inclined to accept the claim of the Ld. AR that as the concluded assessment in the case of the assessee had been reopened by the A.O by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 05.02.2014 i.e. beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessm....