9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of AO u/s 147 of the IT Act for reopening assessment beyond four years from relevant assessment year based on failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Summary: 1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing, filed its return for the assessment year 1995-96 u/s 44AB of the IT Act. After scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), the AO made additions and disallowances. Subsequent to the petitioner's appeal being dismissed, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 seeking to reopen the assessment beyond the four-year limit. The petitioner challenged the notice on grounds of jurisdiction, citing no failure to disclose material facts. The AO's reason for reopening was excess deduction claimed u/s 80M of the Act. The petitioner argued that the AO had properly applied his mind during the initial assessment, making the reopening a mere change of opinion. 2. The respondent contended that the petitioner had claimed more deduction u/s 80M than entitled to, resulting in income escaping assessment. The respondent argued that the AO had allowed the deduction without proper discussion or application of law, making the reopening valid. The respondent claimed that the petitioner furnished inaccurate particulars, justifying the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment beyond the four-year period. 3. The AO is required to form a belief that income has escaped assessment due to failure to disclose material facts for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 beyond four years from the relevant assessment year. In this case, the AO needed to establish that income escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose all material facts. Non-filing of the return was not in dispute, requiring the AO to show that income escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts. 4. The reasons for reopening cited the excess deduction claimed u/s 80M as the sole ground. However, there was no indication of the nature of the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts. The AO's belief was based on the petitioner claiming more deduction than allowable, without proper discussion in the assessment order. The court found that the AO failed to demonstrate the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts, making the reopening invalid. 5. The court concluded that as there was no failure on the petitioner's part to disclose all material facts, the AO's jurisdiction u/s 147 beyond the four-year limit was without merit. The impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 was quashed and set aside, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
|
