Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 clarifies who can issue notices under sections 148 and 148A. It confirms that only jurisdictional Assessing...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to incom...
Income Tax : Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire tr...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplanta...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
In the present case, we find that not only is there a change of opinion but also the re-opening is barred by limitation inasmuch as the condition that the escapement of income must have resulted from the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts, has not been satisfied. The impugned order dated 27.10.2010 merely glosses over the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation.
Only primary fact was that the assessee had earned interest income. We are, however, of the opinion that in the context of the close connection between the petitioner and Aditya Medisales, the fact that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and the interest income received from the sister concern had relevance to the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act, primary facts were not on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had placed all the relevant records, including the construction agreement, before the passing of the original assessment order. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had suppressed certain material facts, due to which the original assessment order, passed by the respondent is liable to be re-assessed.
It is difficult to appreciate the petitioner’s objection that the information received from DAO-45, New Delhi, acting under Article 26 of the Indo-Japanese treaty for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, cannot constitute valid material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer can form even a tentative or prima facie belief that income to the extent of Rs. 11,28,644/- had escaped assessment.
In the case of the assessee, it is clear that a precise and definite information was received by the Assessing Officer regarding receipt of accommodation entries in respect of capital from various persons aggregating to Rs. 14.45 lakhs. He compared the information with the information available in the return of the assessee.
There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not examine the question or subject matter and form an opinion, would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. Such cases have to be examined individually.
In the instant case also, the assessee furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, in the present case, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is definitely a change of opinion which is not maintainable and therefore, the re-assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was not valid.
Thus, in the case before us, in the absence of existence of “any tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment, the Assessing Officer exceeded his authority to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of a “change of opinion” and accordingly, it is a fit case of quashing the notice.
We see no error in the observation made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgement that once limitation period of four years provided under Section 147/149(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [for short, `the Act’] expires then the question of reopening by the Department does not arise.
Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in Section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income Tax is not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of Section 2(28C).
