9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any material facts were withheld by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we quash the reassessment proceedings. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in business of running them on hire, was @ 30%. The assessee has used the trucks for its own business as well as for running them on hire. No information regarding the trucks used for its own business and the trucks used for running on hire was furnished. The assessee was not entitled for the depreciation @ 30% on all the trucks, as, all the trucks were not exclusively used for running them on hire, and the trucks were also used for assessee firm's own business. Hence, the assessee has claimed excess depreciation of 15% on the trucks used for the purpose other than running on hire. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has claimed excess depreciation of ₹ 3,37,238/- which has been allowed. There is an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see submits that there is no scope of alleging that it has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purposes of assessment, and hence, the condition precedent of a valid reopening notice itself is not there in this case, and therefore, the notice is bad in law and reassessment should be dropped accordingly. The assessee submits that its duty is to disclose primary face, which it has very clearly done and in this case, Assessing Officer in original scrutiny assessment had also called for these details of deprecation. On such primary fact being given, theconclusion to be drawn on the said facts is for the Assessing Officer. It is not for the assessee to draw conclusion on the facts furnished by it. Hence, the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to 15%. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before me. 5. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. I find that in the cases where assessments are being reopened after the end of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, and where original assessment is completed under section 143(3), it is sin qua non that the Assessing Officer demonstrates that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the related material facts. No such exercise has been carried out on the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
