9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h re-assessment is made - The learned Tribunal has relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Foramer France ([2003 (1) TMI 101 - SUPREME Court] - to hold that reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion especially when there is no non-disclosure of material fact by assessee, is not permissible - Hence, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. - IT APPEAL NOS. 430 AND 522 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2010 - ARUN MISHRA, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, JJ. R.B. Mathur for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. The appeals are barred by limitation having been filed with delay of 1138 days. The reason that is given in application seeking condonation of delay is that the Tribunal, Chandigarh decided the appeal on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters are therefore heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of deciding both the matters, we have taken the facts of the Appeal No. 522 of 2008 as basis. 3. The assessee is engaged in lottery business through its proprietary concern M/s. Manish Lottery Agencies, Jaipur. He filed return declaring income of ₹ 2,44,85,735, which was revised at ₹ 2,44,65,460. Initially income of the assessee was assessed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) at ₹ 2,46,12,260 on 23-3-1998. However, subsequently notice under section 148 was issued on 22-3-2002 stating that (i) prize winning ticket amount reflected in the balance sheet on the current asset side not taken to the profit and loss accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34. It failed to appreciate that there was no disclosure of this fact to the Assessing Officer. It was a clear case of evasion. The assessment was therefore rightly reopened by recourse to section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act. 6. We have analysed the arguments so made in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal in para 17 of its order has held that the assessment in the present case was reopened essentially not because of escapement of income, but because of change of opinion, which was not permissible even in the amended provisions under section 147. Moreover, when the assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, escapement of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
