2018 (2) TMI 1929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctual basis of the case against an assessee s partner was factually different. Both the statutory appellate foram have gone against the Revenue on the question of reopening of assessment and we do not find any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The stay petition would also stand consequentially dismissed.
Aniruddha Bose and Rajasekhar Mantha, JJ. For Appellant: R.N. Bandyopadhyay and P. Dudheria, Advocates For Respondents: R.N. Dutt and Sutapa Roychowdhury, Advocates JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is directed against a decision of the Tribunal sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in favour of the assessee on the question of reopening of assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion under appeal :- "(10) We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. On identical facts proceedings for reassessment were initiated in the case of Shri Ashwani Kumar More for AY 1996-97. Ashwani Kumar More is a business Associate of the Assessee carrying on business at the same business premises of the Assessee and was subjected to search and seizure operations by the DRI. In his case reassessment proceedings were initiated on identical reasons. The reasons recorded in the case of Ashwani Kumar More (supra) are set out in para 9 page-5 of the order of the Tribunal dated 14.7.2006 a copy of which is placed at pages 16 to 24 of the Assessee's paper book. The operative portion of the said order has already .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 47 of the Act. The AO has not brought out facts to show any omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts when the original assessment was completed. We are of the view that the re-opening of the completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act beyond the period of 4 years cannot be justified. We hold that the re-opening of the assessment is beyond the time contemplated by the proviso to sec. 147 of the Act and therefore, initiation of re-assessment proceedings is held to be bad." [Emphasis Added] 4. We are apprised by Mr. Dutt that the decision of the High Court in ITA No. 206 of 2007 was not carried in further appeal. 5. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue sought to argue t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X