9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at para 6.5 of the order. Thus, the very material fact was available at the time of the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the second condition is also fulfilled by the assessee as it has made available the material facts necessary for making the assessment. In the light of the reasons for reopening of the assessment, in our considered opinion, there is no reference to any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. There is not even a whisper of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, there is no valid ground for reopening the assessment. We, accordingly, set aside the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and also the impugned assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee as per Sec. 79 of the Act. 2.2. In view of these observations the completed assessment was reopened by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee requested the AO to treat the original return of income as having been filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2.3. Reasons for reopening the assessment were supplied to the assessee. The assessee strongly objected claiming that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. The assessee further claimed that the reopening is bad in law inasmuch as the reasons given for the reopening of the assessment is nothing but a change of opinion. The objections raised by the assessee were disposed of by a speaking order dated 2.11.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book which read as under: While determining the income as above, an amount of ₹ 12,39,022/- ₹ 3,86,327/- being brought forward business loss unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2004-05 2005-06 respectively was allowed to be adjusted against the income for A.Y. 2006-07. However, it is seen from the record that the share capital of the company was increased from ₹ 10 lakhs to ₹ 20 lakhs during A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, on the last day of the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the shares of the company carrying not less than 51 percent of the voting power were not being beneficially held by the persons who held it on the last day of the year or years in which the loss was incurred. In view of the above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the assessee fulfills the criteria or not? In so far as the filing of the return of income is concerned, there is no dispute the return was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act which was assessed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act by order dated 10.12.2008. 6.4. Now let us see whether there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 6.5. A perusal of the return of income in particular exhibit-5 shows that the details of share holders PAN was given by the assessee under the head other information. Under the head Other information at exhibit page-7, details of equity shares are provided and at page-16, statement of set off of unabsorbed losses and allowances broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --- ----- 20000 20,00,000 10000 10,00,000 6.6. A further notice was issued by the AO and once again the details in relation to the shareholders were called for. The said notice at page-69 of the Paper Book which was duly complied by the assessee as per its reply on page-72 of the Paper book. 6.7. As mentioned elsewhere pertaining to details in relation to the change in shareholding pattern was specifically explained as mentioned at para 6.5 of the order. Thus, the very material fact was available at the time of the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the second condition is also fulfilled by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
