For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

mittedly the reopening notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 2001-02 in respect of regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The jurisdictional requirement to issue a reopening notice under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is a failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment during the scrutiny proceedings. In fact, the reasons in support of the reopening notice even do not allege any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement is not satisfied. Moreover, we find that the Tribunal has on facts found that there was a full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee during the regular assessment proceedings. This finding of fact has not been shown to be incorrect or perverse in any manner. 7. In the above view, the view taken by the Tribunal calls for no interference. Accordingly, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143, 147, 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, revenue filed appeal against the order passed by ITAT and placed the following question—

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in quashing the reopening proceedings, holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in making true and full disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment?

Held that— the reopening notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 2001-02 in respect of regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The jurisdictional requirement to issue a reopening notice under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is a failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment during the scrutiny proceedings. In fact, the reasons in support of the reopening notice even do not allege any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement is not satisfied.

Tribunal has on facts found that there was a full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee during the regular assessment proceedings.
In the above view, the view taken by the Tribunal calls for no interference. Accordingly, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.[THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [84] [BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

mittedly the reopening notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 2001-02 in respect of regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The jurisdictional requirement to issue a reopening notice under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, is a failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment during the scrutiny proceedings. In fact, the reasons in support of the reopening notice even do not allege any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement is not satisfied. Moreover, we find that the Tribunal has on facts found that there was a full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee during the regular assessment proceedings. This finding of fact has not been shown to be incorrect or perverse in any manner. 7. In the above view, the view taken by the Tribunal calls for no interference. Accordingly, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143, 147, 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, revenue filed appeal against the order passed by ITAT and placed the following question—