9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO in the absence of any new material justifying the re-opening and on the very same facts tantamounts to abuse of his power. See BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [2009 (8) TMI 557 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of lack of inquiry or a case where full and true disclosure was not made. 3.1. Inviting attention to Paper Book page 5 it was his submission that the AO also contemplated rectification proceedings u/s 154 on the very same issue as an undated copy of the said notice is placed at Paper Book page 5. It was submitted that whatever the reasons may have been ultimately he chose to drop the same and thereafter in these circumstances the proceedings are re-opened after 4 years on the issues which have already been considered in the original round, it was submitted is an abuse of the provisions. Referring to para 3 of the order u/s 147/143(3) it was his submission that the sole reason for re-opening is what has been already considered by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no new material was available before the AO. Reliance was also placed upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. vs DCIT in W.P.(C) 7948/2013 & CM 16840/2013 [DoD:16.07.2015]. 5.3. It was submitted that all these facts have been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) and in the absence of any rebuttal on these facts, the claim of the Revenue should be dismissed. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As far as the facts are concerned they are not in dispute as admittedly the issue sought to be addressed by the AO u/s 154 which was given up is the same issue which was subsequently picked up by him for re-opening. Admittedly the assessment origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft proposed. As to the first part of the second question my answer would be that the assessment proceedings cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment, if the original assessment was made u/s 143(3). My answer to the second part of the second question is that the issue is concluded by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator (supra). 24. My answer to the third question is this. So long as the assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment and so long as the assessment order is framed under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
