9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -opening of the assessment the Assessee pointed out: "As a matter of fact, the assessing officer had called (for) certain clarifications and the assessee had furnished the required clarifications, where-after this issue was dropped by him." The Court concurs with the ITAT that the re-opening of the assessment by the AO for AY 2005-06 was based on a change of opinion and, therefore, impermissible in law. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee, and as noted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the order dated 15th October, 2012 for the AY 2004-05, in the original assessment order dated 29th December 2006 under Section 143 (3), the AO had "elaborately discussed Section 14A of the Income tax Act and disallowed a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue against the impugned common order dated 2nd June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos.215 216/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2005-06 and 2004-05 respectively. 6. This is the second round litigation involving the same Assessee. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was right in holding that reopening of assessment in the case of the aforementioned AYs was invalid? 7. Incidentally, for AY 2002-03, this Court in its decision CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 58 taxmann.com 225 (Delhi) declined to frame a similar question that was urged and dismissed the Revenue s appeal after observing that the question of failure to disclose truly the material facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted in computing admissible exemption. After deduction of proportionate management and administrative expenses of Rs.l,47,25,630, the allowable deduction worked out to ₹ 2,90,56,559/- as against ₹ 4,37,82,189. The AO concluded that this mistake had resulted in under-assessment of income to the extent of ₹ 1,47,25,630/- and as a result there was a short levy of tax of ₹ 60,75,243/- including interest. The re-opening was proposed in view of Section 14A of the Act. 10. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee, and as noted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the order dated 15th October, 2012 for the AY 2004-05, in the original assessment order dated 29th December 2006 under Section 143 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
