9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sections 147 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be made beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 1997-98. In the present case, the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 26.03.2004, as per the assessment order much beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant AY 1997-98. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal was justified in annulling the re-assessment order of the AY 1997-98 on the ground of same being barred by limitation as per proviso to Section 147 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.1377 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh For the Appellant : Ms.Pushy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the end of the relevant assessment year. This is against the principles of natural justice. The assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case CIT ANR Vs. Saipem Spa (2008)(1 DTR 21) wherein it was held as under: Even if it was a case of deemed escapement of income within the meaning of Expln.2(c)(ii) of s.147, there being no fault on the part of assessee in making full and true disclosure), reopening of assessment after expiry of four years was barred by limitation under proviso to s.147. Hence in our opinion, the assessing officer was not justified in reopening the assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, when there was absolute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.The substantial question of law suggested in the Memorandum of Appeal are as under: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law? 3.Both the learned counsel drew our attention to the re-assessment order dated 31.03.2005 in which while making the addition in question, the learned Assessing Authority himself has candidly admitted that despite addition having been made in the total income, the concealment penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has not initiated, since no aspect of concealment on the part of the assessee was noticed. But the addition to total income was on account of change of opinion. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
