9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was completed on 30/12/2011 at total income of Rs. 168,77,00,674/-against the returned income of Rs. 7,84,81,841 /-. Subsequent to the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company had translated the accrued interest on deferred IRAQI dues and provision for interest to subcontractors at exchange rate on last settlement date from Government of India and not at the rate prevalent as on 31/03/2009 ( i.e. last date of the relevant financial year). According to the Assessing Officer, non-observation of the mandatory provision of translating the foreign-exchange transaction on the last date of the financial year, the profit declared by the assessee was lower by an amount of Rs. 6,90,40,000/- and, therefore, the said income was escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 24/03/2014. In the reassessment proceedings completed on 20/02/2015, the Assessing Officer after restating the interest liability keeping in view the dollar exchange rate on the last date of the balance-sheet for the year under consideration, mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abhai Singh, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (jurisdictional high court) it has been observed, inter alia, "...What is really necessary to be adjudicated in a case of this nature is about existence of relevant material which form foundation of a belief and constitutes reasons for entertaining a belief about escapement of an income...". Further, it is held legally that an Assessing Officer does not have power to review an assessment. Hence, merely giving reason that perusal of records or a past assessment has formed the reason for the belief that income has escaped assessment does not per se make the reopening of an assessment stand in the court of law. In fact, in Madhukar Khosla vs. CIT (2014) 367ITR 165 (Del), relied on by the appellant, it has been observed, inter alia, "The foundation of the AO's jurisdiction and the raison d'etre of a reassessment notice are the "reasons to believe". Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or materials constitute the driver, or the key which enables the authority to legitimately reopen the completed assessment. In absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief." 5.7 From the above paras, it is observed that the arguments and submissions given by the AR of the appellant appear plausible as they are borne out from records and in accordance with the existing law in this regard. Further, the issue regarding non-restatement of interest in foreign currency and not including it in its income exigible to income tax is by the appellant was already considered and accepted in the original assessment u/s 143(3). Also, the absence of tangible material which formed the basis of the belief - the question as to how did the AO come to peruse the assessment records when the assessment was already completed necessarily, in my opinion, constitutes a 'review' which, an AO is not permitted to do under the Act. Accordingly, in due deference to the decisions of the apex court and the jurisdictional high court mentioned supra, the reopening of the original assessment u/s 143(3) by resorting to Section 147 of the Act based on the reasons mentioned above is, in my opinion, void ab initio and accordingly, the rejection of the appellant's objection to the reopening of the original assessment u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 339 ITR 535 (Guj) - ACIT Vs Nityanand Infrastructre Ltd. (ITA No. 2255/Mum/2017) - ACIT Vs Ms Seema Dilip Vora ( ITA No. 582/Mum/2017 - Replika Press Private Limited & Anr Vs DCIT (2013) 92 DTR 153 (del) - Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT(2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del) - PCIT Vs Tupperware India private limited (2016) 284 CTR 68(del) - Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. vs DCIT (2016) 380 ITR 412 (del) - Rasalika Trading and Investemnt Co. Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT ( 2014) 365 ITR 447(Del) (ii) that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while adopting rate of US dollar for computing interest liability and therefore, reasons need to be rejected on the ground of non-application of mind also. (iii) that no addition has been made on this account in subsequent years and no case of prior year has either been reopened on this account also. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on records. In the case, the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in 2009-10, and subsequently, the assessment has been reopened on 24/03/2014, therefore, the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n predicates that AO must hold a belief.......by the existence of reasons for holding such a belief. In other words, it contemplates existence of reasons on which belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief may not be based merely on reasons but it must be founded on information. As was observed in Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) : TC 51R.639, expression "reasons to believe" is stronger than the expression "is satisfied". Belief entertained by the AO should not be irrational and arbitrary. To put it differently, it must be reasonable and must be based on reasons which are material. In S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC) : TC 51R.651 it was noted by the apex Court that expression "reasons to believe" in s. 147 does not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the AO, belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant bearing to the formation of belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To that limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escaped assessment, which belief can be reached in any manner and is not qualified by a precondition of faith and true disclosure of material fact by an assessee as contemplated in the pre-amended s. 147(a) of the Act and AO can under the amended provisions legitimately reopen the assessment in respect of an income which has escaped assessment. Viewed in that angle power to reopen assessment is much wider under the amended provision and can be exercised even after assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts. To similar view were the conclusions of this Court in Rakesh Aggarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (Del) 272 : (1997) 225 ITR 496 (Del) : TC S51.4080. It is to be noted at this juncture that twin conditions must be fulfilled if the case is one which is covered by the proviso to s. 147 operative w.e.f. 1st April, 1989." 5.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Praful Chunnilal Vs MJ Makwana CIT (supra) has in their decision dated 19/02/1998 expressed that 'though the material was available on record at the time of assessment, when no conscious consideration of the material is made, it will not put an embargo under the provision of 147 of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deemed to be cases of escaped assessment so as to warrant the proceedings even beyond the said period of four years, since, in that event, the case would fall in the enabling part of the proviso. Clause (b) deals with cases where no assessment is made and the AO notices that the income is understated or excessive loss, deduction allowance or relief is claimed in the return. These would be cases where the return is accepted without scrutiny and no formal assessment is made. Clause (c) would cover cases where, in the assessment already made, income was underassessed or assessed too low or excessive relief is given or that excessive loss or depreciation allowance or other allowance under the Act has been computed. In the aforesaid deemed cases of escapement of income, the AO can initiate the proceedings on finding or discovering such cases and no debate whether they constitute cases of escapement of income, would be permissible. 7. It will thus, be seen that in the proceedings taken under s. 147, the AO may make an assessment or reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be. The word 'assess' refers to a situation where the assessment was not made in the normal manner while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escaped from being included in the final assessment order in which taxable income was worked out. In such cases the AO has in fact a duty to exercise his jurisdiction. The AO has not to conclusively come to any finding on the facts which prompted his reason to believe, at the stage of the issuance of notice under s. 148 pursuant to which the assessee is to be heard; and the order if adverse, can be questioned under the provisions of the Act. 8. The cases of underassessment or excessive relief which are deemed cases of escapement of income leave no scope for an argument that they are not the cases of income having escaped assessment. If the AO prima facie finds or discovers that the case falls in any of the clauses of Expln. 2, then those cases will be of deemed cases of income that has escaped assessment and without anything more beyond such find or discovery, he can initiate the proceedings under s. 147 of the Act. On a proper interpretation of s. 147 of the Act, it would appear that the power to make assessment or reassessment within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would be attracted even in cases where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was escapement of income. Since the AO at the first assessment in the year 1991-92 never really formed an opinion on the question whether there was a transfer on 19th Sept., 1990, of the land in question to the firm and that the amounts credited to the accounts of the partners who had contributed the lands to the firm, were meant to be the price of the land which was to be actually paid from the collections received by the firm from membership fees as soon as received, as was envisaged admittedly in para. 11 of the partnership deed, there was no question of any change of opinion when on the relevant facts being found the AO, while protectively assessing the petitioner-assessee for the year 1993-94, noted that this was a case for issuance of a notice under s. 148, which came to be issued thereafter. When the amount of taxable income and of the tax payable thereon were not ascertained at all by the AO in respect of the transfer made by the assessee in favour of the firm on 19th Sept., 1990, there obviously was no opinion formed in that regard and consequently, there would not arise any question of a mere change of opinion. In cases where the AO had overlooked something at the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO, the belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational nexus or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To that limited extent, the action of the AO in initiating proceedings under s. 147 can be challenged in a Court of law." It was further observed : "Upto 31st March, 1989, two conditions were required to be fulfilled to confer jurisdiction on the AO to act under s. 147(b). They are : (1) he must have information which comes into his possession subsequent to the making of the original assessment order, and (2) that information must lead to his belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, or that it has been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or has been made the subject of excessive relief. After 1st April, 1989, the position is somewhat different. Sec. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, provides that where AO has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year he may apply the provisions of s. 148 to 153. He may assess o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Revenue [See UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 154 CTR (SC) 88 : (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC)]. Recently in CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1 : JT 2001 (9) SC 61, the apex Court following the said decision observed : "It is true that by this press release the Board had interpreted the provisions of the Act in a particular manner. Be that as it may, we would like to make it clear that every clarificatory note or press release issued by the Board does not have the statutory force like the circulars issued by the Board under s. 119 of the Act. It is only those circulars issued by the Board under the provisions of s. 119 of the Act, will have the statutory force and will be binding on every IT authorities. Therefore, the press release relied upon by Shri Ramamurti not being a circular issued under s. 119 of the Act will not be of any assistance to the respondents in support of their contentions." If further observed that : "Learned Solicitor General has pointed out that by virtue of the power vested in the Board under s. 119(2)(a) of the Act, the Board has issued circulars by Notification No. F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B), dt. 23rd May, 1996. As per this circular, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority would be taken away is not apposite for the purpose of this case. In Union of India & Ors. (supra), whereupon Mr. Jolly had placed strong reliance, the apex Court was dealing with an administrative instructions whereby no right was conferred upon the respondents to have the house rent amount included in their emoluments for the purpose of computing overtime allowance. The apex Court held that otherwise also the Government's instructions have to be read in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Therein the apex Court was not concerned with the statutory powers of a statutory authority to issue binding circulars. 21. Another aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of. A statute conferring an arbitrary power may be held to be ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which upholds constitutionality, it is trite, should be favoured. In the event it is held that by reason of s. 147 if ITO exercises its jurisdiction for initiating a proceeding for reassessment only upon mere change of opinion, the same may be held to be unconstitutional. We are, therefore, of the opinion that s. 147 of the Act does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC) on 18/01/2010 and held that 'AO has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: "4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the AO to make a back assessment, but in s. 147 of the Act (w.e.f. 1st April, 1989), they are given a go by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post 1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 80IC of the Act, which was duly responded by the assessee and the assessment was completed after reducing the claim under section 80IC of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that excess deduction was allowed to the assessee due to the reason that deduction was claimed on receipt/income, which were not derived from the business of the undertaking. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case in their decision dated 03/04/2018 held that where the Assessing Officer has consciously made inquiries on an issue in regular assessment proceeding, he cannot reopen the assessment on the same issue. The relevant finding of the of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "11. The undisputed position in the present case is that the regular assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the re-opening has been issued within a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Thus, the rigour of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not to be satisfied for issue of a reopening notice i.e. failure to disclose all material facts truly and fully necessary for assessment. It is also not disputed that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The SLP filed against the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dated October 2018, which is reported in (2018) 99 taxmann.com 206(SC). 5.8 In the case of Jalaram Enterprises Private Limited (supra), cited by the learned Counsel of the assessee, the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was completed under section 143(3) on 09/03/2016. This assessment was reopened on 27/03/2018 (within period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year). The reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer mentioned that as per the information received from Investigation Wing, the assessee was one of the beneficiary of the bogus entities, which are controlled and operated by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt. The Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 01/03/2019 observed that summons were received by the assessee and the period relevant to assessment year 2010-11 and, therefore, action to reopen the assessment for 2013-14 was bad in law. The Hon'ble High Court relied on the finding in the case of assessee's writ petition, wherein it is held as under: "5. Under similar circumstances, while disposing of assessee's petition being Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of assessment proceedings, the entire facts regarding FDR bank interest were furnished to the then AO who appears to have been of the opinion that the entire investment and income pertains to business only and accordingly net income was worked out and salary paid to partners under s. 40(b) of the Act came to be computed. Considering the material placed before the AO, it would appear that the AO must have applied his mind in taking into consideration the interest income while computing book profit under s. 40(b) of the: Act. Moreover, in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. (supra), the view taken by the AO is a plausible view. Once the view taken by the AO is a plausible view, reopening of assessment on the ground that another view which is more beneficial to the Revenue is possible, is nothing but a mere change of opinion. In the circumstances in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with ownership of land and building. We are not preparing any profit and loss account for our company in the period of construction as all the expenditure are debited to work-in-progress and transfer at the completion of work to land and building account on one side and members contribution to reserve and surplus account under building fund. We are enclosing herewith details of dwelling and shop units proposed floor-wise along with total size of floor and constructed areas for your kind perusal. Annex. 1. 11. Thus, it is apparent that, on the same set of facts and material available on record, the successor assessing officer has come to form a different opinion and recorded reasons thereupon without establishing any lapse on part of the Petitioner or any fresh information. The settled legal position in this regard has been reiterated by the apex court recently in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. : (2010) 2 SCC 723:(2010) 34 DTR (SC) 49, wherein the court has held in para No. 6 of the judgment that there is a conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The assessing officer has no power to review; he has only power to reassess. It is further l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable to the Assessing Officer is the non-disclosure of material facts on the part of the assessee. The Act places a general duty on every assessee to furnish full and true particulars along with the return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings so that the Assessing Officer is enabled to compute the correct amount of income on which the assessee shall pay tax. The position has been further clarified by the proviso itself in a case where assessment under sub-section (3) of section 144 of the Act or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such year by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. It is also noted that the scope of newly substituted (w.e.f. 01/04/1989) section 147 has been elaborated in department circular number 549 dated 31st October, 1989, meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount before the Assessing Officer from which material or evidence could have been with due diligence gathered by him,he has discharged his duty. It is for him to point out the relevant entries which are material, without leaving that exercise to the Assessing Officer. The caveat, however, is that such production of books of account may, in the light of the facts and circumstances, amount to full and true disclosure; this is clear from the use of the expression "not necessarily" in the Explanation. Thus, the question of full and true disclosure of primary or material facts is a pure question of fact, to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. No general principle can be laid down. It was observed by the Hon hie Apex Court, in various cases that there should be some "tangible material" coming into the possession of the Assessing Officer in such cases to enable him to resort to section 147 of the Act. Despite being a case of full and true disclosure, tangible material coming to the possession of the Assessing Officer after he made the original assessment under section 143(3), would influence the opinion, formed or presumed to have been formed earlier, by the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the business of printing of text books and in the original assessment deduction under section 10B of the Act was allowed to the assessee. Subsequently, in the reasons to believe recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that according to CBDT circular No. 347 dated 07/07/1982, the assessee was not a manufacturer for the purpose of deduction under section 10B of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 05/08/2013 observed that "as per the reasons to believe, the AO had formed an erroneous legal opinion in the original assessment order and thus held that such cases cannot be covered and cannot be made subject of reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act and appropriate remedy available to the Revenue was to initiate proceeding under 263 of the Act". The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "11. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has drawn our attention to the full bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha International Ltd., [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) wherein, reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ALA Firm Vs. CIT, (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). Our attention was drawn to proposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue even suggest so in the counter affidavit filed in the proceedings. It is only in a subsequently filed additional affidavit that the position is sought to be clarified. Clearly this Court refrains from making such an enquiry, at a time when the AO has, in the first instance, failed to spell out clearly in the section 148 notice itself that such report was not on record. In other words "the reasons to believe" do not state that even in one sentence that the investigation report of 13.3.2006 was not with the AO when he completed the assessment. The material on record in fact suggests otherwise; the nature of the queries put to assessee and the replies and confirmation furnished to the AO in the course of the regular assessment clarify that what excited the suspicion was indeed gone into by the AO himself while framing the assessment under section 143(3). This Court is fortified in its conclusions by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Goverdhan Das Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 where it was held that public orders made by public authorities intended to have effect on the public should be construed objectively with reference to the language used rather than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had offered no explanation about the nature and source of the said additions..." and thus, must be treated as income which escaped assessment. No details are provided as to what such information is which excited the AO's notice and attention. The reasons must indicate specifically what such objective and new material facts are, on the basis of which a reopening is initiated under Section 148. This reassessment is clearly not on the basis of new (or "tangible") information or facts that which the Revenue came by. It is in effect a re-appreciation or review of the facts that were provided along with the original return filed by the assesse. The Supreme Court in Kelvinator (supra) frowned against such exercise of power: "However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that on opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer on the issue of taxation of advertisement and distribution revenue, and the reasons recorded for reassessment, the Assessing Officer merely intended to revisit the concluded assessment and it was a clear case of change of opinion, which was not permissible under law. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "16. The power to reopen an assessment was conferred by the Legislature but not with the intention to enable the ITO to reopen the final decision made against the revenue in respect of questions that directly arose for decision in earlier proceedings. If that were not the legal position, it would result in placing an unrestricted power of review in the hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods - CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh [1965] 56 ITR 234 , 239(SC). 17. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lai. v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), their Lordships have held while interpreting section 147 as it stood in the assessment year 1963-64:- ". . An Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to the facts of the present case and on perusal of the reasons we find that no fresh information or material has been referred to in the reasons recorded for seeking to reopen the assessment. The material that is referred to is the very same material that was already before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act and even the reasons record that 'from the perusal of the assessment record, it is observed that'. This clearly shows that the assessing officer has sought to reappreciate the material that was already there at the time when the assessment was framed under Section 143 (3). Thus, as seen from above, it is clearly a case of change of opinion, which is clearly not permissible." 5.18 The Hon'ble High Court has relied the decision of the full bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Usha International Ltd (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case in original assessment an issue or query has been raised in which has been answered by the assessee and thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order, in such situation , he forms an opinion and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in regular assessment proceeding, then in such circumstances even if no addition has made in the assessment order, it shall be treated as a opinion has been framed by the Assessing Officer and subsequently, reopening on the same issue would amount to 'change of opinion'. The Hon'ble High Court in para 39 of the decision has further held that where the Assessing Officer has not raised any written query on the particular issue in the original assessment, then such matters require deeper scrutiny or examination of the records to ensure whether any opinion was framed by the Assessing Officer on that particular issue. Thus, there is no doubt that where regular assessment is completed under section 143 (3) of the Act the assessment cannot be reopened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year merely on the basis of change of opinion without any tangible material. 5.22 Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee has drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla(supra), wherein it is held that first of all the "trigger" in the form of new information or facts for issuance of notice of re-assessment should be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
