9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, limitation provided in the Act cannot be increased - Notice u/s 148 is found to be clearly beyond four years of the completion of the regular assessment order - no new material or information has come to the knowledge of the AO. The interest of the bank is not outstanding liability in the balance sheet of the assessee - The entire exercise undertaken by the A.O amounts to change of his opinion which law does not permit him to do so – relying upon Banswara Syntex Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2004 (3) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN High Court ] - if the escapement of income believed by the AO is not attributable to any failure on the part of the assessee in filing return u/s 139 or 148 or to failure on the part of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. The A.O has recorded the following reasons for reopening of the assessment dated 20.11.2006 as under: It is noticed that a sum of 31,11,074/- on account of interest of term loan paid to RIICO and another sum of 22,44,036/- was debited in P L account. From the perusal of above interest accounts it noticed that interest on term loan 31,11,074/- was paid to RIICO through BOB CC3 account (i.e. working capital loan account) and interest on CC limit was debited in the same account which was not actually paid. Under the clause(e) of section 43B of IT. Act, 1961, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or advances from a scheduled Bank in accordance with terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the Bank of Baroda CC account and RICCO was paid off. It was further stated that the interest liability of CC account was also debited by the Bank of Baroda and there was no outstanding interest liability. It was claimed that the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on 16.1.2012 is after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant A.Y. The ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order after holding that the reopening was based on change of opinion of the A.O which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The ld. CIT(A) has also deleted the addition made on account of merits. 3.1 The Revenue is aggrieved and has filed this appeal by challenging the legal finding given in relation to holding the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The A.O has to interpret the facts of the case by stating that the payment of interest on RICCO loan has been converted into fresh loan from Bank of Baroda by way of enhance CC limit which he has thought is disallowable u/s 43B of the Act. We have found that the interest of the bank is not outstanding liability in the balance sheet of the assessee. The entire exercise undertaken by the A.O amounts to change of his opinion which law does not permit him to do so. The ld. A.R Shri U.C. Jain has relied on various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd reported in 272 ITR 154 [Raj] in which it has been held that if the escapement of income believed by the A.O is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
