9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16.07.2013 setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the assessee is a Company carrying on business in investments and securities. They filed a return of income on 30.10.2005, for the assessment year 2005-06, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,30,08,266/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and an order, under Section 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 20.07.2007 determining 'NIL' income after setting off the brought forward losses of Rs. 1,54,88,864/-, and long term capital loss of Rs. 2,30,08,266/-. On verification, the Assessing Officer not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that reopening of the assessment, by the Assessing Officer, was bad in law; there was no new information on record; the Assessing Officer had not brought out any details showing how income had escaped assessment, what was the default committed by the assessee, and what inaccurate information had been provided by them; the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision regarding the issue at hand and, after six years, the assessment could not be reopened on the basis of the very same information as it was nothing but a change of opinion. The order of the Assessing Officer was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. In the order under appeal, the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther held that reopening of assessment, in the present case, was not only on a mere change of opinion but also amounted to review of the assessment order passed earlier under Section 143(3) of the Act. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was affirmed, and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department would submit that the Assessing Officer was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act as the assesee has failed to disclose, fully and truly, all material facts. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the Assessing Officer had re-examined the assessment order passed earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
