9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to petitioner. Final appeal has been disposed by ITAT vide its order pronounced on [ 2020 (12) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI] holding that the franchisee fee paid by petitioner to BCCI was revenue expenditure and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. All figures were all available before the AO, who has considered the same and after applying his mind, passed the original assessment order dated 26th March 2015. Therefore, in our considered view, the reason to reopen on change of opinion, which as held by this Court, the Apex Court and many other Courts, is not permissible. We will have to hold that the AO had in his possession all primary facts and it was for him to make necessary enquiries and draw proper inference, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as respondents will have to show that there is failure to truly and fully disclose material facts by the assessee. 2 With the assistance of Mr. Mistri and Mr. Suresh Kumar we have considered the petition and the documents annexed thereto alongwith the reasons for reopening, copy whereof is at Exhibit M to the petition. The reasons only indicate the proposal to reopen is only because of change of opinion which is not permissible in law. The reasons do not indicate anywhere what was the material fact that petitioner had failed to disclose. In the reasons for reopening, the Assessing Officer infact states on going through the case records of the assessee, it is found.... . In the reasons for reopening, there is not even a whisper as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income for Assessment Year 2012-2013 was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the said Act, respondent no.1 raised a query as to why the franchisee fee of ₹ 30,03,60,000/- should not be disallowed as it is capital in nature. Petitioner responded and explained why it should not be and why the franchisee fee payable to BCCI is revenue in nature and allowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of the said Act. 4 To a specific query raised by respondent no.1, petitioner by its said letter dated 17th November 2014 also submitted a statement received from the BCCI for sharing of the central rights income which was to be shared with petitioner, wherein BCCI adjusted the amount that was payable by petitioner to BCCI on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for reassessment. Even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that account the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings. Where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. 6 Therefore, the notice dated 31st March 2019 under Section 148 of the said Act and the order dated 22nd November 2019 are quashed and set aside. 7 Petition disposed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
