9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopened on account of change of opinion of Assessing Officer, the reopening was not justified. It is also held that where primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion. It is held that while considering the material on a record, one view is conclusively taken by Assessing Officer, it would not be open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material and take another view. Perusal of the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1 indicates that Respondent No.1 has relied upon facts and figures available from the audited account and undisputed TAR filed along with the return of income in the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit margin is added as a percentage of total costs incurred during the year and work-in-progress are valued accordingly. The final profit from each project is recorded on completion of that project by deducting from the sale proceeds of the total work-in-progress. 3. Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30th September, 2012, declaring total income of ₹ 2,14,65,350/-. The tax was paid under Section 115JB of the said Act on the book profit of ₹ 4,17,99,442/-. Petitioner offered 10% profit on construction cost, non-construction cost, less cost, and various closing work-in-progress following the percentage completion method. 4. Petitioner's case for relevant Assessment Year was selected for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 30th March, 2019. 8. Respondent No.1 has contested Petitioner by filing a reply. It is stated in the reply that Petitioner has failed to fully and truly disclose material facts in the original assessment. It is also stated that Petitioner has the alternate statutory remedy to challenge the final order of assessment by way of Appeal. 9. We have heard Ms. A. Vissanji and Mr. Suresh Kumar. With the assistance of learned Advocates for the parties, we have scrutinized the record, and we find that the impugned notice has been issued after four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Section 147 of the Act permits Respondent No.1 to reopen an assessment, provided he has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.1 has relied upon facts and figures available from the audited account and undisputed TAR filed along with the return of income in the original assessment. Since the impugned notice was issued four years from the end of the relevant Assessment year, there has to be tangible material to conclude that income had escaped assessment. From the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1 in the reassessment notice, it appears that there was no tangible material available on record to conclude that income had escaped assessment. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Assessing Officer has acted in excess of the limit of his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment in the exercise of powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
