9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ua the relevant AY. There is no dispute about the fact that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, via order dated 24.04.2005. Given this factual position, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal, that this was a case of change of opinion and, therefore, the reassessment proceeding could not have been triggered merely on the basis of audit objection, without any fresh tangible material. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Pratishtha Choudhary and Mr Aditya Gupta, Advs. For the Respondent Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. It is on these two counts that the AO formed a view that the respondent/assessee had enhanced its loss by Rs. 1,97,26,934/-. 6. It is not in dispute that in the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue has not raised the first aspect as a ground for appeal. 7. The only issue that the appellant/revenue has raised concerns the write off carried out by the respondent/assessee of the capital work-in-progress/ process via its Profit and Loss account. 8. Significantly, insofar as the said issue is concerned, the Tribunal, insofar as second issue is concerned, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal returned the following findings, which are set out in paragraph 5 of the impugned order: 5. We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial which the AO came up or became aware of subsequent to the original assessment. In other words, what triggered the AOs curiosity to impel him to re-examine the files and documents pertaining to a completed assessment is unknown. Nor does the materials placed in the assessment show that the petitioner had unjustifiably suppressed valid or relevant information which was otherwise available. The advertence to the disallowance o f a provision for an unascertained liability points to the AO indulging in what amounts to nothing but a masked review. What appears to have excited the Aos mind was that the original assessment order was not framed properly as it overlooked certain materials which led to loss of revenue. The AO in the first i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. (ii) Second, the reasons recorded did not advert to any tangible material which had triggered the reassessment proceeding. (iii) Third, the respondent/assessee had produced its books of accounts before the AO, which were tested. (iv) Fourth, the note appended to the computation of income adverted to the reason why capital work-in-progress/process had been expensed out, i.e., debited, to the Profit and Loss account. 11. It appears that the only reason that the reassessment proceeding was triggered, was on account of an audit objection. 12. In our view, the approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 13. The respondent/assessee had made full disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
