Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 321 - DELHI HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - reason to believe - onus to prove - Reassess v/s review the income - waiver of loans granted by the BIFR - remission of liability was not even remitted in the tax audit report i.e., Form 3CD - HELD THAT:- The courts have taken a consistent view that once the assessee has disclosed all the material and primary facts, truly and fully before the AO, it is for the AO to draw the requisite inferences from those primary facts. The onus on the assessee cannot be extended beyond the true and full disclosure of such facts. Also, the power of the AO to reassess an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is strikingly different from the authority to review the decision taken during the original proceedings. While the former is permissible in light of the pith and substance enshrined in Section 147 of the Act, allowing the latter would be a violence with the mandate of the said Section Applying the principles laid down in Usha International Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 767 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in the instant case, it is clearly seen that not only the aspects relating to the issue at hand had been fully disclosed by the petitioner before the AO but by recording the submissions and comments in the assessment order, it can be reasonably inferred that the AO has formed an opinion on the said issues. Thus, allowing the reassessment proceedings to continue in the present case would be contrary to the mandate expounded in Usha International Ltd. (supra). We are also mindful of the note of caution as articulated in the case of Techspan India P. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2006 (2) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT] whereby, this Court, while relying upon Gruh Finance Ltd. v. [2000 (2) TMI 86 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that every attempt to bring to tax income that has escaped assessment cannot be aborted by judicial intervention on an assumed change of opinion. Thus non-disclosure of full material cannot be attributed to the petitioner in the instant case. Rather, the AO had omitted to make any addition qua the issue at hand, despite noting the submissions and forming an opinion on the same. Reopening notice set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
|