9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to tax had escaped assessment. In the absence of the same, the AO could not have assumed jurisdiction and issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act. Even on the reading of the reasons recorded, it cannot be said that it suggests about any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. A claim which has been allowed in the original assessment proceedings after examination of the relevant details and facts cannot be amenable to provisions of Section 147/148. In the present case, notice for re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is not as per the mandate of Sec.147 of the Act and therefore the re-opening is not permissible. We are therefore of the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the total income was determined at ₹ 14,52,096/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order in appeal no. 417/2013- 14 order dated 31.10.2014 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law by initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as all the information/details were available during the original assessments and were examined by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. No new information/material came to his knowledge to reopen the case as provided in law; but merely on account of change of opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ater part of the order that there was no query in respect of change in accounting treatment on original assessment proceedings. d) Appellant has not filed any evidence to substantiate his claim that only 60% of work was completed during the year. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that issue regarding appellant's claim for brought forward losses does not arise from the order challenged in the present appeal. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not allowing the claim of tax deducted at source of ₹ 31,32,351/- claimed as refund while filing the return of income. 7. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 5. Before us, at the outset, learned AR submitted before us that thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age 83 of the paper book. He further submitted that the notice under section 148 has been issued beyond a period of four years and when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years than an additional condition needs to be satisfied namely that there must be failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. He further submitted that in the reasons recorded, there is no allegation on the part of the assessee of failure to disclose material facts and therefore the condition of first proviso of section 147 of the Act has not been satisfied. 7. He therefore, submitted that the reopening for examining the issue which has been examined during the course of origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 15.03.2013 and thus it is a case of re-opening of assessment after expiry of four years. In such a scenario, as per the 1st proviso to Sec.147 of the Act, no action for initiation of re-assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2006-07 could have been taken unless the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment for a reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. 11. From the material available on record it is evident that during the course of original assessment proceedings, on the issue of allowability of ₹ 19,22,905/-, the assessee had disclosed the information to the AO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
