9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment. Since no opinion was expressed in the original assessment, it is not the question of change of opinion. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) may not be correct in saying that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment, the CIT(Appeals) has to dispose the appeal on merit on the basis of the grounds raised before him. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) - Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1750/Mds/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - SHRI N.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt proceeding was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act within a period of four years. However, the CIT(Appeals) found that there was a change of opinion. Therefore, he found that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) proceeded on the presumption that there was no negligence on the part of the assessee. The negligence on the part of the assessee would come into play when the Assessing Officer proposed to reopen assessment after four years. In this case, the assessment was reopened within four years. Therefore, there is no question of considering the negligence of the assessee. Since the shareholding pattern was not examined by the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uccession, is not considered by the Assessing Officer at any point of time in the original assessment proceeding. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that there was a difference in the allotment of shares. Hence, he issued notice under Section 148 within four years. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, there is no negligence on the part of the assessee. For reopening assessment within four years, it may not be necessary that there is negligence on the part of the assessee. What is necessary is to see whether any income of the assessee chargeable to tax escaped income. In this case, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that there was reason to believe that the income otherwise chargeable to tax has escaped income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
