9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 purporting to reopen the assessment for A.Y.2005-06. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 29 November 2007. Prior thereto, a notice was issued to the assessee on 21 August 2007 under Section 143(2). The assessee stated that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer verified the books of accounts and the claim of expenses made in the profit and loss account. The notice for reopening has admittedly been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The following reasons have been furnished for reopening the assessment :- "Since, the assessment was completed on 14/12/2007 accepting the melting loss @ 7.75% in the similar line of business the melti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer by the Petitioner's Advocate on 27 December 2011. On 28 December 2011, the Assessing Officer informed the Petitioner that in absence of a copy of the order of the Court he was proceeding to complete the assessment which was becoming time-barred on 31 December 2011. On 30 December 2011, the Assessing Officer addressed a communication to the Panel Advocate for the Revenue and eventually passed an order of assessment on the same day. 2. The reopening of the assessment has admittedly taken place beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. There is no allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee that there was any failure on his part to fully and truly disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four years. While allowing the Petition, this Court held as follows :- "The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3). The assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The jurisdictional condition is that in such case before an assessment can be validly reopened, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to state fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment. There is no such allegation in the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has purported to reopen the assessment only recording that according to him the melting loss of 7.24% which was claimed by the assessee is higher than what is found in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, does not indicate that any general principle of law was laid down in that case by the Tribunal. All that the Tribunal held there was that the Commissioner (Appeals) had properly worked out the reasonable wastage percentage as 5.5% as against 6.6% shown by the assessee in that case. As a matter of fact, the order of the Tribunal would also indicate that it was only the Revenue which was in appeal against the determination made by the Commissioner (Appeals) which was not challenged by the assessee. Hence, looked at from every perspective, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has transgressed the limits on his jurisdiction for seeking to reopen an assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
