9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as a mere change of opinion as per hon'ble apex court land mark decision in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] . Bombay High Court decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ 2004 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer must state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. And that the AO himself must also speak through his reasons and should not keep and also seek through his reasons and should not be an assessee guessing for the same. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee's legal arguments challenging validity of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73,07,161/- by making an addition of ₹ 53,81,261/-. It is against such an addition the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. In response to the hearing notice, Sri. Chandrakanth Khatri appeared. During the course of hearing, the learned AR filed the written submissions. He contended that the notice u/s. 148 was issued after a period of 4 years on the basis of audit objection. The original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). No fresh information was brought on record and, therefore, the proceedings u/s. 147 is not valid. The learned AR relied on the following decisions: a) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 187 taxman 312 b) The decision of the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 456 (SC), where the AO comes into possession of fresh information or new facts, which lead him to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment, he can reopen the assessment. In the present case, the A.O. not found any fresh information nor new facts. 4.1 In the circumstances as contended by the learned AR, the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 cannot be held as valid. Thus the assessment made by the A.O. is accordingly annulled. 3. A perusal of the above extracted lower appellate discussion sufficiently indicates that the Assessing Officer had reopened his regular assessment dt. 28.3.2013 for the sole reason that the assessee had indulged in short recording closing stock of ₹ 53,81,261. We notice in this fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
