9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which has been passed after following the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd [ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT ] and Hindustan Lever Ltd [ 2004 (2) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above we are inclined to uphold the order of ld CIT(A) on the issue of reopening. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 64/Ran/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2022 - Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri R.R. Mittal, CA For the Respondent : Shri Pranob Koley, Sr. D.R ORDER PER SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) ] dated 05.12.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The ground raised by the revenue is under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reassessment order on the ground of invalid notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. Order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.12.2012 on a total income of Rs. 6,34,360/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer, it appears, while recording his reasons to believe noted' all the facts which were already on record as would be evident from the following: subsequently from assessment records, on perusal, of the Profit Loss Account (contract work) it was observed [para-2.1] However, it was also seen that in the Column.27 of Audit Report (Form No.SCB'), Auditor had mentioned As informed to us no TDS liability on payment of freight because payment to individual truck payment is below Rs. 50,000/- during the year. [ [para-2.1] Further, on perusal of the audit report it was also noticed that the appellant had been debited X1,06,03,297Z- in the Profit Loss Account during the period [para-2.2] further, it was noticed that as per Audit Report produced by the appellant of the period 2009- 10 the appellant had received back VAT TCS amounting to Rs. 72,022/- Rs. 4,09,770/-respectively [para-2.3]. 6.3 It is quite evident that all the information on which the Ld. Assessing Officer relied upon were available on record and which were obtained at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the Assessing Officer to reach the conclusion as to whether there was-failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year. It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. The reasons are the manifestation of the mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the, assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide the link between conclusion and eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all these three issues in the original assessment proceedings and therefore there is no question of change of opinion as has been held by the Ld. CIT(A). In defense of his arguments, the Ld. D.R relied on the couple of decisions namely Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indi-Aden Salt Mfg. Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1986] 159 ITR 624 (SC) and the decision of Hon ble High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vs. Bachraj Nathani reported in [1946] 14ITR191 (Nag.). The Ld. D.R. submitted that in order to reopen the assessment, the AO is required to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment since the AO had not examined these issues at all in the original assessment proceedings. The ld DR ,therefore, argued that the AO has sufficient reasons that income has the escaped assessment and was rightly opened without there being any change of opinion. The ld DR thus prayed before the bench that the order of the ld CIT(A) may kindly be reversed. 7. The Ld. A.R on the other hand heavily relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) by submitting that issue raised on the basis of audit report which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
