9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking to reopen the assessment for the year 2004-05. The petition arises in the following factual background. 3. For the assessment year 2004-05, originally assessment was framed after scrutiny. After one round of remand by the Tribunal, final assessment came to be framed on 30th April 2010, determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,56,86,104/-. 4. The Assessing Officer issued notice for reopening the assessment on 23rd March 2011, stating that he had reason to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. He gave 30 days time to the assessee to file return in response to such notice. 5. At the request of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order dated 31.12.2007 passed u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A and order dated 30.04.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Further, scrutiny of records also revealed that during the year the assessee company claimed sales commission of Rs. 3,88,023 and Rs. 10,97,730 totalling to Rs. 14,85,753/- in respect of Unit no. I and II respectively. The balance sheet of the assessee has total liability of sales commission payable of Rs. 3,51,99,394/-. This outstanding sales commission pertains to earlier years. The liability is very old. The liability pertaining to more than three years is required to be treated as ceased liability and taxed. This issue has also not been considered and discussed in the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 passed u/s.153C r.w.s. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es commission payable were made. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue relying on the reasons stated in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent in this petition contended that notice was validly issued and the assessment proceedings should be allowed to be proceeded. 9. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we recall that the Assessing Officer in his reasons recorded has indicated two grounds on which he formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax in case of the assessee had escaped assessment. First ground according to the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had wrongly claimed customs duty which was paid by the assessee on behalf of the customers. Second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the issues were within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer while original assessment was being framed. Not only that the assessee had disclosed all facts pertaining to these issue but had made further clarifications in response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts. In the present case, therefore, when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the same would not be permissible.
12. In the result, the petition is allowed. Notice dated 23rd March 2011 is quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
