9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of this court in support of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2013 (1) TMI 517 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to contend that where a provision of law has been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would be open to the Assessing Officer to issue a reopening notice. This decision relied upon by the Respondent has been rendered in the context of assessment being reopened within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In such cases of reopening of assessment in less than four years, the jurisdiction is not dependent upon failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment as in this case, where the reopening is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, it has not been taken at market value for the purposes of computing the profits and gains available for deduction; and (iii) The confirmations for unsecured loans were signed by persons other than the directors / partners / proprietors of the entity giving the loan confirmations. 4. This clearly is a case of seeking to reopen an assessment beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The condition precedent to assume jurisdiction in such case is the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. (i) The benefit of Section 80IB of the Act was denied in regular assessment proceedings by order dated 24 December 2010 after consideration of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to our notice. Consequently, the reopening notice, to the extent it relies on this ground, is prima facie not sustainable. (iii) So far as the loan confirmation being signed by persons other than directors / partners / proprietors of the entity issuing the same is concerned, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the same was not produced before him during the assessment proceedings. Thus, this is also a case where the Respondent has prima facie not been able to establish any failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. 5. In our prima facie view, as the reasons in support do not satisfy the requirement of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
