9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Titanor Components Ltd., Vs ACIT [2011 (6) TMI 138 - Bombay High Court] - There is a well known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts fully and truly - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 5055/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2013 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri N. K. Billaiya, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Pitambar Das For the Respondent : Shri J. D. Mistry Shri Sanjiv M. Shah ORDER Per N. K. Billaiya, AM:- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-17, Mumbai dt.8.5.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Revenue has raised following 3 substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JB was returned at Rs. 1,09,63,466/- The said return was revised on 13.8.2005 declaring total income at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions of the Act and at Rs. 1,09,63,466/- as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 11.12.2006 determining total income at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions and Rs. 15,30,98,232/- as Book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. The book profit was revised at Rs. 14,75,67,792/- in pursuant to order u/s. 250 of the Act. 4. Subsequent to the above proceedings, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.3.2010. The reasons for reopening are exhibited at para-4 on page-2 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for Bangalore unit at Rs. 5,10,51,545/- and in respect of Chennai unit at Rs. 12,88,11,597/-. The AO noticed that in the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10A in respect of both the units at Rs. 21,83,49,609/-. The AO disallowed the excess claim of deduction at Rs. 3,84,86,467/-. 6. The assessee strongly agitated this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated what has been stated during the course of reassessment proceedings. It was strongly contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that reassessment is invalid as full and true disclosure were made by the assessee. It was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that in the reassessment proceedings, the AO has not shown which material facts was not truly and fully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reopening of the assessment is beyond a period 4 years therefore, the pre-condition for the applicability of Sec. 147 is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. When the reopening is done beyond 4 years merely stating that there is an escapement of income would not suffice. There must be a failure to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment . Unless this condition is fulfilled, the reopening cannot be sustained. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd., Vs ACIT (Writ Petition No. 71 of 2005). The discussion by the Ld. CIT(A) finds place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
