Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) (ITAT Ahmedabad)
A perusal of the above would indicate that in all these three years, assessments have been framed under section 143(3) of Act. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant year in the Asstt. Year 2009-10 and 2010-11. AO has recorded reasons on 1.12.2015 in both these years. As far as Asstt. Year 2011-12 is concerned, notice under section 148 was issued on 14.3.2016 i.e. within four years from end of the assessment year.
Thus, as far as Asstt. Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 are concerned, proviso appended to section 147 would come to the rescue of the assessee for challenging reopening of the assessment because this proviso puts an embargo upon power of the AO to reopen any assessments where four years have expired and original assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act.
In such cases, assessments can be reopened only if an income assessable to tax has escaped on account of failure of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly. In other words, the AO has to demonstrate that income of the assessee has escaped assessment on account of its failure to disclose all material facts of the assessments in its income fully and truly.
A perusal of the reason would indicate that no such circumstance has been highlighted by the AO. It is also pertinent to observe that perusal of the reasons extracted (supra) would disclose that AO has not assigned any reason to show how the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. The same very facts were available to him when he passed original assessment orders. Even as far as Asstt.Year 2011-12 is concerned the AO has not brought on record any tangible material which came to his notice after passing of regular assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
