2019 (10) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the part of the respondent to disclose truly and fully all material particulars necessary for assessment. Nor does the reading of the reasons as a whole indicate the same. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts, it was found that the reopening notice is without jurisdiction and hit by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal in support of the impugned order correctly placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, [ 2016 (1) TMI 947 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law
M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for the respondent ORDER P.C. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e dated 22nd March, 2013 records the fact that the respondent in its return of income had considered the written down value of the depreciated assets on gross basis. However, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the respondent assessee was directed by the Assessing Officer to reduce the current years depreciation by ₹ 2.60 crores (approximately) for arriving at written down value of its assets. It is on the basis of having incorrectly taken depreciation, the short term capital gain on slump sale have been determined. This should have been without taking into account current years depreciation of ₹ 2.60 crores (approximately). Thus, the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (c) The Assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reasons recorded in the reopening notice dated 22nd March, 2013. In fact, the reasons recorded in support of the reopening notice dated 23rd March, 2013 even does not allege that there is any failure on the part of the respondent to disclose truly and fully all material particulars necessary for assessment. Nor does the reading of the reasons as a whole indicate the same. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts, it was found that the reopening notice is without jurisdiction and hit by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal in support of the impugned order correctly placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, 382 ITR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X