Madras HC allows Daimler
India's writ, quashes re-assessment proceedings initiated after the expiry of 4
years from the end of the relevant AY 2009-10, holds that it was a ‘clear case
of change of opinion’ as assessee made full & true disclosure at the time
of the original assessment; Notes that AO sought to reopen the assessment on the
basis that assessee had not disclosed the material fact that they had not
commenced business during the year, however, observes that assessee had made
disclosure about its business activity in Form 3CEB which was duly taken into
account by TPO who specifically recorded in his order that commercial
production proposed to start in year 2012; Regarding Revenue's contention that
AO will not look into Form 3CEB, observes that there is sufficient indication
to show that AO considered TPO's order and even assuming AO did not look into
Form 3ECB, “he is bound to look into the order passed by the TPO, as he is
required to see any other additions have been made”; Also rejects Revenue’s
stand that assessee merely produced books of account before the AO and that
there was no presumption that all the books were seen by the AO, opines
that “it is for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a conclusion based on
the materials produced and it is not for the assessee to suggest as to what
conclusion that should be arrived as it has been held that the assessee is not
expected to submit a draft assessment order”; Thus, concludes
that “reopening could not have been done as it has been held that
information received by the Assessing Officer, after the completion of the
assessment alone is sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147”;
Also relies on Kelvinator of India ruling and distinguishes A.L.A. Firm
ruling :HC
No comments:
Post a Comment