9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not a case where there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment. No fresh tangible material before the AO or the assessee failed to disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment. Hence, we hereby quash the reopening/re-assessment order being not sustainable under the law - No substantial question of law arises. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA MRS KALPANA K RAVAL (1046) FOR THE APPELLANT ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1. This tax appeal is filed for consideration of following question of law: Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in quashing reassessment proceedings by holding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,495/- on sale barge since the MV Aditi Barge is depreciable asset and the same should be deducted from the block of assets in Ships in depreciation statement. Hence, an amount of Rs. 4,75,495/- debited to the P L Account was required to be added back while computing total income from business and profession but the same was not added back. In view of the above, you are hereby show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,75,495/- towards the profit on sale of Barge should not be disallowed and added to the total income. 4. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal however, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee holding as under: 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1-4-1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. 5. In light of the questions already decided by the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561(SC), the Tribunal found that since the reopening was on the basis of the material already available on record and there was no new tangible material available before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of period of four years and it was not a case where there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts necessary for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
