9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious assessment year and the subsequent assessment year. The above categorical finding of the CIT(A) has not been dispelled by the Revenue by placing any contra evidence. In the light of the finding of the learned CIT(A), which was not controverted by the Revenue, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A) as correct and in accordance with law. Revenue appeal dismissed. - ITA No. 2242/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2021 - Shri Chandra Poojari , AM And Shri George George K, JM Appellant by : Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR Respondent by : Sri.G.Sathyanarayana, CA ORDER Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A) s order dated 08.08.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2010-2011. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, though the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed vide Board s Circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019, the case is covered under the exclusions to the monetary limits provided under Para 10(c) of the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and hence this iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al assessment, hence, the reopening of assessment is bad in law. On merits, it was stated that for the relevant assessment year, actual net profit declared by the assessee is 18.14%, and therefore, the gross profit could not be 16.39% as alleged by the A.O. The CIT(A) decided the reopening of assessment as well as the issue raised on merits in favour of the assessee. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved, has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the grounds raised. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities and relied on the findings of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the instant case, notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act was issued on 23.03.2017, i.e., beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 21.02.2013. During the course of original assessment order, the A.O. had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act asking the assessee to furnish the following details :- (i) Complete set of return of income along with P L account and balance sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, the reassessment has been initiated on mere change of opinion. Section 147 of the I.T. Act permits the A.O. to assess / reassess the income of an entity on account of income that has escaped assessment. The power to assess or reassess income under section 147 of the I.T. Act cannot invoked routinely unless the following conditions are satisfied : (i) There should be `reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment reason to believe cannot be change of opinion ; and (ii) AO is barred from taking any action under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year in the following cases: (a) Where an assessment under section 143(3) or 147 has already been concluded for the relevant assessment year; and (b) There is no failure from the part of the assessee to: Make a return under section 139 Response to notice under section 148 Disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.6.4 6.4 The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of New Delhi Television v. DCIT [(2020) 116 taxmann.com 151 (SC)] had held that reopening of the assessment beyond four years is bad in law when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olly without jurisdiction. 6.8 In the instant case, there is no mention in the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act that escapement of income was due to failure on the part of the assessee to make true and full disclosure of income. On the facts and circumstances of the case, since the A.O. in the original assessment has considered the entire issue and concluded the assessment, the reassessment initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is on account of mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we confirm the CIT(A) s order in quashing the reassessment proceedings. 7. As regards the issue on merits, the learned CIT(A) had categorically found net profit is at the rate of 18.13% of the sales for the year, and therefore, for gross profit of 16.29% arrived at by the A.O. is factually incorrect. It was also found by the CIT(A) that N.P. of 18.13% is higher than NP declared for the previous assessment year and the subsequent assessment year. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) on merits reads as follow:- 6.2 The appellant has filed a copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
