9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. [ 2021 (8) TMI 520 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a provision in the Act, which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters the law as it earlier stood; and even if it is assumed that the said amendment is retrospective, it cannot give rise to a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly material facts as held by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. [ 2013 (4) TMI 116 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] AO 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 the Petitioner would be entitled to succeed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure in computation of total income. On 30th December 2016 the Respondent No. 1 passed an assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 wherein disallowance was made in respect of the claim of Prior Period Expenditure. Thereafter the audit department objected to the allowability of the expenditure of ₹.290,92,13,655/- and computed ₹.87,27,64,095/- as potential loss of revenue as tax. 4. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice under section u/s 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment. Petitioner filed return of income in response to the said notice on 23rd April 2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 under protest vide email dated 26th April 2021. At the request of the Petitioner, almost after 8 months, reasons for reopening was supplied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by this Court, on 30th March 2022 and communicated to the Respondent on the same day, the Respondent No. 2 passed an assessment order u/s 147 r.w. s. 144B of the Act on 30th March 2022 thereby raising a demand of ₹ 234,55,83,250/- u/s 156 of the Act. The Respondent No. 2 also issued a notice dated 30th March 2022 u/s 274 r.w. section 271 (1) (c) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. Upon being noticed by this Court, at the instance of the Petitioner, by an Order dated 4th April 2022 the assessment order dated 30th March 2022 as well as the consequent notices u/s 274 r.w. s. 271 (1) (c) were quashed and set aside. 9. Section 147 of the Act permits Respondent No. 1 to reopen an assessment, provided he has reasons to believe that income has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment based on the very same material and take another view. The judgment also holds that the disclosure envisaged by the proviso is a disclosure of primary facts and where primary facts are fully and truly disclosed, the AO is not entitled to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion. 11. Perusal of the reasons recorded by Respondent No. 1 indicates that the Respondent No. 1 has relied upon facts and figures available from the audited account. We find that Note No. 20 disclosed all material particulars, pursuant to which an assessment order u/s 143 (3) was passed on 30th December 2016. Furthermore, the AO proceeded on the footing that the entire expenditure of ₹ 290,92,13,655 was CSR expenditure and disallowed it placing relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said amendment is retrospective, it cannot give rise to a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly material facts as held by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. vs ACIT 349 ITR 656 (Bom). 14. For the aforesaid reasons the AO 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 the Petitioner would be entitled to succeed in this proceeding. 15. We, therefore pass the following order i. The impugned notice dated 26th March 2021, the order dated 21st March 2021, issued by Respondent No. 1 for A.Y. 2013-14 are quashed and set aside and the Respondents are prohibited from taking any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
