1. RRB CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, W.P.(C) 7313/2010, DATE OF DECISION : 08.12.2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
The assessee has not failed or omitted to disclose material facts either deliberately or intentionally. On the other hand, full and true information and details were furnished and given during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The relevant and germane facts were truly and fully disclosed. As per the case of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer made an error of judgment and did not form a proper legal opinion. A wrong legal inference wasdrawn from the facts stated by the assessee and on record. Once primary facts have been disclosed then, it is for the Assessing Officer to draw proper legal conclusion and apply the provisions of the statute. In the present case, it is not alleged that any fact or factual detail was embedded in the evidence/books of accounts which the Assessing Officer could have uncovered but had failed to do so. The letter written by the assessee dated 10th January, 2006, spelt out and in categorical terms had stated truly and fully the material facts. Nothing remained to be discovered or unearthed.
This being the position the jurisdiction pre-conditions required for re-opening of the assessment order are not satisfied in the present case.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15566 OF 2011, DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2011, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
U/s 147, it is only the AO’s opinion with respect to the income escaping assessment which is relevant for the purpose of reopening an assessment. While it is true if the audit party brings certain aspects to the notice of the AO and thereupon, the AO forms his own belief, it may be a valid basis for reopening assessment, the mere opinion of the Audit Party cannot form the basis for the AO to reopen an assessment. On facts, the AO had categorically come to the conclusion that the objection of the audit party was not valid and that the assessee’s explanation with respect to non-requirement of collection of TDS was required to be accepted. Accordingly, the AO could have no “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment and so the s. 148 notice was without jurisdiction.
(Please click here for judgment)
II. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now