9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1237 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reason to believe - benefit of sections 11 and 12 denied - HELD THAT - AO has to demonstrate that income of the assessee has escaped assessment on account of its failure to disclose all material facts of the assessments in its income fully and truly. A perusal of the reason would indicate that no such circumstance has been highlighted by the AO - perusal of the reasons extracted would disclose that AO has not assigned any reason to show how the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. The same very facts were available to him when he passed original assessment orders. Even as far as Asstt.Year 2011-12 is concerned the AO has not brought on record any tangible material which came to his notice after passing of regular assessment order u/s 143(3) - CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding in his order, and held that complete books of accounts with bills and vouchers were submitted before the AO for verification. Nothing has been come to the notice of the AO showing basis for harping a belief that income has escaped the assessment - Decided against revenue.
Issues: Reopening of assessment challenged by Revenue for Asstt. Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12
Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment - Asstt. Year 2009-10: The Revenue contested the reopening of assessment for the Asstt. Year 2009-10, arguing that the ld.CIT(A) erred in holding the reopening as bad in law. The ld.CIT(A) quashed the reassessment, emphasizing that the AO did not bring forth any new information or adverse material to justify the reopening. The appellant had provided all necessary details during the original assessment proceedings, and the AO's reasons for reopening were deemed a change of opinion without tangible grounds. Citing legal precedents, the ld.CIT(A) concluded that the reassessment was null and void ab initio due to the absence of fresh evidence. The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO failed to demonstrate how income escaped assessment, especially when the same facts were available during the original assessment. 2. Reopening of Assessment - Asstt. Year 2010-11: Similar to the Asstt. Year 2009-10, the Revenue challenged the reopening of assessment for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. The AO issued a notice under section 148 after four years from the end of the relevant year without providing substantial reasons for reopening. The ld.CIT(A) found that the AO did not present any new material post the original assessment under section 143(3) to justify the reassessment. Complete books of accounts were submitted for verification during the original assessment, and no basis for income escaping assessment was established. The Tribunal concurred with the ld.CIT(A)'s well-reasoned decision, emphasizing the lack of tangible grounds for reopening, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. 3. Reopening of Assessment - Asstt. Year 2011-12: In the case of the Asstt. Year 2011-12, the Revenue contested the reopening of assessment within the permissible four-year window. The AO issued a notice under section 148 but failed to provide any new evidence or material to support the reopening. The ld.CIT(A) noted that no tangible grounds were presented by the AO post the original assessment under section 143(3). Complete documentation was submitted for verification during the original assessment, and no indication of income escaping assessment was found. The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting the absence of valid reasons for reopening and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals by the Revenue, affirming the ld.CIT(A)'s decisions to quash the reassessments for the Asstt. Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 due to the lack of substantive grounds for reopening the assessments.
|
