9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 977 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - notice beyond period period of four years - HELD THAT - Once the factual position is clear and admittedly, the assessment year involved is 2013-14 and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.2019, which is beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant year and there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Foramer France, 2003 (1) TMI 101 - SC ORDER . In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal by Revenue. 2. Validity of reassessment/reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal by Revenue The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 54 days. The delay was attributed to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Revenue sought condonation of delay based on directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which allowed the delay to be condoned during a specified period. The Tribunal, in line with the Supreme Court's directions, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. Issue 2: Validity of reassessment/reopening of assessment The core issue in the appeal was the validity of the reassessment/reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment for the relevant assessment year was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment, stating that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment was not valid as it amounted to a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO), which is impermissible. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO has the power to reassess, not review, and in this case, the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than fresh information. The CIT(A) annulled the reassessment proceedings under section 147, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was beyond four years from the end of the assessment year. The AO's reasons for issuing the notice did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Foramer France, (2003) 264 ITR 566, which supported the assessee's position. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment/reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal aspects and reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision in the case.
|
