Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HARISANKAR V.MENON
Apollo Tyres Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment completed for ay 2009-10 under section 35(2ab) with issues on the reopening of assessment. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on non-disclosure of form 3cl and its implications for reopening assessments under the act. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of material suppression and verification obligations of the assessing authority. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
1. This appeal, at the instance of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), seeks to challenge the order dated 30.11.2023 in I.T.A. No.139/COCH/2020 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, with respect to the assessment year 2009-10, by which, the findings of the first appellate authority to the effect that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of Act, after four years was bad in law, was set aside. The appellant-assessee has raised the following questions of law:
i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment under Section 147 for AY 2009-10 is not barred by limitation?
ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence
Non-production of evidence does not constitute material suppression justifying reopening of assessment beyond four years under the Income Tax Act.
A defective return cannot be regarded as an invalid return.
Reassessment under Section 147 after four years requires proof of failure to disclose material facts, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires specific allegations of non-disclosure of material facts by the assess....
The judgment established the importance of tangible material and the prohibition of a mere change of opinion in the exercise of power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act after four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts; mere change of opinion does not justify such action.
Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires tangible new material; mere change of opinion is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
