9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not justify passing of the order dated 31st March, 2003, is the conclusion reached concurrently in this case - The assessment years under consideration, namely, 1993-1994 to 1997-1998, the assessee disclosed the income and on identical lines that was assessed - If that was assessed, there was no necessity of issuing a notice to reopen it and particularly when there is no failure on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then, time may be given to him to reframe this question and thereafter he would proceed to satisfy the Court that the present appeal raises a substantial question of law. 3. We do not appreciate such a course at all. The appeal is filed in this Court on 24th November, 2011. Nothing prevented the counsel from correcting the memo of appeal and if necessary for reframing the question of law. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment was reopened under Sections 147 and notice under Section 148 was issued on 20th March, 2002. Therefore, an order was made on 31st March, 2003 with an assessed income of Rs.39,57,16,390/. Aggrieved by this order dated 31st March, 2003, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement thereof. An order of the present nature could have been passed on the mere change of opinion. The Tribunal has, in paragraph 53 of the order under challenge, precisely found that the revenue is undertaking an exercise which was not permissible in the given facts and circumstances. The assessment years under consideration, namely, 19931994 to 19971998, the assessee disclosed the income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
