Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (11) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advs. SANJIV KHANNA, J: (ORAL) The present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) relates to assessment year 2000-01 and is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) dated 13th May, 2010 in the case of Purolator India Ltd. now known as Mahle Filter System (India) Ltd. (respondent-assessee). 2. By the impugned order the tribunal has set aside the reassessment order on the ground that the jurisdictional pre-conditions for initiation of proceedings were not satisfied. Reassessment proceedings had been initiated by the Assessing Officer after recording that the computation of deduction under Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Section 80IA(9) is applicable when deduction under Section 80HHC is claimed, both in favour of the Revenue and the assessee. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the tribunal examined and went into the question whether there was failure or omission on the part of the respondent-assessee in making full and true disclosure of material facts. In the present case, as the reassessment were initiated after 4 years of end of the financial year, the proviso of Section 147 of the Act is applicable. One of the jurisdictional pre-conditions for reopening assessment in the present case is that there should have been failure or omission on the part of assessee to make true disclosure of material facts. The findings recorded by the tribunal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the AO, therefore, makes it clear without any doubt that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. The fact that the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80HHC as well as 80IB were duly available in the return of income as well as annexure thereto, which were duly considered by the AO at the time of the making the original assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that even no allegation has been made by the AO in the reasons record for issuing notice u/s. 148 that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for his assessment. It is not the case of the AO made out in the reasons recorded that there wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re the assessing officer and non-disclosure of which would have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income from assessment. Whether or not primary facts‟ have been disclosed is normally a question of fact and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The requirement of explanation (1) is that there should be full and true disclosure of the primary or material facts and not beyond that. It is the obligation of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the primary facts. It is not the obligation of the assessee to indicate and state what legal inference can be drawn from the primary facts. While examining the implication of a similar provision in Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, the Supreme Court in C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee had failed or omitted to disclose the material or primary facts. These were available on record. The assessing officer, it is stated, had failed to draw correct legal inferences at the time of original assessment from the said primary facts. This is not an error or omission on the part of the respondent-assessee. It is not alleged that the assessee had suppressed, misrepresented or falsified the record/facts. It is not alleged that there was any subsequent factual information on the basis of which it was found that the assessee had not fully disclosed the primary facts or had falsified or disclosed incorrect primary facts. 11. Recently in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT bearing ITA No.87/2010 decided on 11.11.2011 and it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates