Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED FIS Global Business Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT & Anr. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7792 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7784 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Rajan N. Aswani 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1244 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1335 (SC)
REFERRED Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Ors. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1584 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED IDEA Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1640 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0732 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1482 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0745 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT & Anr. v. Foramer France 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0933 (SC)
REFERRED United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1670 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Kalvinator of India Ltd. 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1348 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Bawa Abhai Singh v. Deputy CIT 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0311 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Foramer v. CIT & Anr. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0564 (All-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0225 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Akbar Ali Jummabhai 1992 TaxPub(DT) 1397 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED L.R. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0846 (Del-HC)
REFERRED New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd. v. M.B. Naik, Income Tax Officer 1990 TaxPub(DT) 1041 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0952 (SC)
REFERRED Income Tax Officer & Ors. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 TaxPub(DT) 0742 (SC)
REFERRED Lakhmani Mewal Das v. Income Tax Officer 1975 TaxPub(DT) 0016 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED S. Narayanappa & Ors. v. CIT 1967 TaxPub(DT) 0198 (SC)
REFERRED Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. 1961 TaxPub(DT) 0130 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2126 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 426 ITR 0414

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

In the absence of failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, reopening done out of mere change of opinion was hit by proviso to section 147 and, therefore, reassessment was quashed as invalid.

Reassessment - Beyond four years - No allegation as to failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assesmsent - Reopening on the basis of audit objection earlier requested to be dropped

AO reopened assessment after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the basis of audit objection pointing out factual omissions in original assessment order. Assessee's case was that reopening done out of mere change of opinion was hit by proviso to section 147. Held: AO in the reasons recorded for reopening alleged no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and, further, very same official in response to aduit objection had taken into consideration all the materials placed and requested for dropping of audit objection and, therefore, passing of second order of assessment on the basis thereof amounted to change of opinion on the very same set of facts and therefore, reassessment was quashed as invalid.

Supported by:United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1670 (Del-HC), CIT & Anr. v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 933 (SC) and CIT v. A.V. Thomas Exports Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 603 (Mad) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 732 (Mad-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2007-08



IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT