9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have to examine whether here is a case of change of opinion or it is a case of genuine reason to believe to Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. in question. There has to be some valid ground, that is some relevant document or material having escaped notice or there has been wrong calculation due to human error bona fide committed, or ignorance of correct and complete facts due to mistake or ignorance of fraud/ misrepresentation. It is not in dispute that Assessee has disclosed full and correct facts and there was no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of Assessee at all. With open eyes, after examining the entire matter, AO, completed assessment under Section 143(3) and that being so, subsequent changed opinion that 100% depreciation has wrongly been allowed, it could not have issue notice under Section 147. In this regard, view taken by Tribunal, we find is correct and in accordance with law. Question No.2, therefore, is answered against appellant and in favour of Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lure on the part of Assessee. 7. Aforesaid reasons for reopening of Assessment were also provided to Assessee by Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.07.2012. Notice was issued after getting approval from Commission of Income Tax, Lucknow. Thereafter, notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Assessee filed objections against initiation of proceedings under Section 148, which was disposed of vide letter dated 16.01.2013. Notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 26.02.2013 to Assessee requiring to justify its claim of 100% deduction on temporary site accommodation at ₹ 5,98,17,813/and to furnish complete details of tool, minor equipments, etc., for which it claimed deduction of ₹ 10,34,07,097/- . No reply was submitted and, thereafter, Assessing Officer passed revised assessment order dated 30.03.2013 adding ₹ 5,53,31,477/- , ₹ 8,78,96,032/- and ₹ 3,06,37,641/- (total ₹ 17,38,65,150/). Assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as, 'CITA'). Vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2015, CITA partly allowed the appeal. Addition of ₹ 5,53,31,477/and ₹ 8,78,96,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and finding of Tribunal on this issue, which otherwise, is reversed. 12. Now coming to the second question, it is not in dispute that entire amount and deduction claimed by Assessee was fully disclosed to Assessing Officer when assessment was made by allowing claimed deduction under Section 154, on 07.12.2007, and subsequent orders under Sections 144, 251 and 254 would make no substantial difference in this regard. That being so, we have to examine whether here is a case of change of opinion or it is a case of genuine reason to believe to Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for A.Y. in question. 13. This issue has been considered time and again, hence, we do not add to the length of this judgment by giving entire such decisions and suffice it to refer a few such authorities. 14. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. : (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), a Three Judges' Bench held that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, Section 147 confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and after 1st April 1989 power to reopen the assessment is much wider. Court further observed: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court". 17. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO (1961) : 41 ITR 1919 (SC), Court held that duty of disclosing primary facts relevant to the decisions of the question before assessing Authority lies on the Assessee and it is onerous duty of Assessee to disclose truly and fully all the primary facts. Once all the primary facts have been disclosed, Assessee thereafter is not required to provide any further assistance by way of disclosure to Assessing Officer. Relevant observations of Court are as under: "Does the duty, however, extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts ? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody elsefar less the assesseeto tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
