9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six years from the end of relevant assessment year on the premise that the income of the assessment and further that the assessee had not disclosed full particulars with respect to such income. Counsel further pointed out that the CIT Appeals upheld the reopening of assessment. It was pointed out that the Tribunal held the reassessment proceedings invalid only observing that the notice was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of assessment year and that therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the proceedings were barred by limitation. Counsel contended that the Tribunal has not examined the question whether in facts of the present case, reopening of assessment beyond four years was valid. Issue notice for final disposa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... close fully and truly all material facts. Assessing Officer mentioned in the reasons recorded that in computation of deduction appellant did not give effect to the provisions of section 80IA (9) without writing any note as to why no adjustment was made in the computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC. This was not disclosed by the appellant fully resulting in escapement of income. Further original assessment was completed under the appellant's claim of Samman Scheme and hence no further verification was made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore appellant did not disclose the material fact relating to claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC fully as mentioned by Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, the reopening of assessment for A.Y 2001-02 is also j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment is barred by limitation. The Tribunal made following observations in this regard: "4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that in this case the proceedings has been initiated by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 8.9.2006, which in any case is beyond the period of four years from the end of AY as the original assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s. 143 (3) on 30.1.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceedings initiated were barred by limitation. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 itself was invalid. Therefore, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment beyond the period of four years. CIT [A], however, upheld the validity of such notice confirming the view of the Assessing Officer that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Before the Tribunal in further appeal, the assessee contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Thus, before the Tribunal, two divergent stands were presented. Revenue held the belief that the assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts, which view was confirmed by the CIT [A]. Whereas, the assessee contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
