TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income on November 30, 2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,21,09,900 after claiming a set-off of loss of Rs. 4,20,20,957 from assessment year 2013-14 from the income of Rs. 1,99,11,057. The order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on August 25, 2016. The approval to reopen the assessment is taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. The reasons for reopening the assessment are as under : "2. On verification of record, it is seen from the submission filed by the assessee that Mr. Mithun Lodha/Vickey Jain, a purchaser of shop No. 08, had in fact, rendered Rs. 2,00,000 being part payment of the consideration in cash on June 8, 2012. So, the applicability of section 43CA(3) has got violated as the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of Rs. 45 lakhs was received. The same was disclosed and was duly considered in the return of income that stood assessed under section 143(3) on August 25, 2016. It is submitted that the notice dated June 26, 2016 evinces that the Assessing Officer (AO) had called for the details of sale which was duly furnished along with the letter dated July 29, 2016 and August 17, 2016 at exhibits I-1 at page 57 and I-2 at page 59 of the petition. Consequently, all material and documents necessary for assessment were considered while passing the order dated August 25, 2016. Moreover, pursuant to the notice dated March 29, 2021, the petitioner filed return of income on April 27, 2021 and had filed detailed objections through its submissions dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s nothing else but review/re-appreciation of the material already in possession of the respondents which was not permissible. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar fairly submits that in paragraph 4.4 of the affidavit-in-reply dated August 18, 2022 admitted that the "reasons to believe" are based on the documents provided and that the contention of the assessee is partly correct. He however, relied upon the judgment in the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) ; (1976) 1 SCC 985 ; 1976 SCC (Tax) 111 ; 1976 (2) SCR 966 to submit that if due to oversight, material remained to be examined, it would enable the Assessing Officer to take action under section 148 of the Act. He submitted that the particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered the reasons and have gone through the annexures to the petition, to conclude that it is a clear case of "change of opinion"; no specific reasons are given, or discovery of new material is mentioned in the reasons to show a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose. The petitioner has fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for its assessment, he has no further duty to disclose as there was nothing embedded. Inference of law on the given facts is for the Assessing Officer. In the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) ; 1960 SCC OnLine SC 10, the Supreme Court held that (page 201 of 41 ITR) : "Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further a....