CIT vs. GLOBE GROUND INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1087/2011HC DelhiDLHC01126105201116 September 2011Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustainable in law. The reassessment proceedings were annulled as they were based on a change of opinion by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income for AY 2001-02, and the original assessment was completed. Four years later, the AO issued a notice under Section 147 to reopen the assessment, considering maintenance and overhaul expenses of a main deck loader as capital in nature. The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings as time-barred and a case of change of opinion.

What were the issues?

Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 is permissible after four years when it is based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and not due to failure of the assessee to disclose material facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

t> #2 olo.L6.O9.2011 Present: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Mr. Rahul Sateeja, Advocate for the assessee. +ITA No.1O87l2O11 * The assessee had filed income tax return for the assessment year 200t-02 declaring income of <3,97,092/-. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('the Tax' for brevity). Vide orders dated 29th March, 2004, additions were made and total income at T17,60,665/- was assessed by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, four years after the aforesaid assessment, notice under Section I47 read with Section 143 (3) of the Act was issued to the assessee on the ground that the expenses pertaining to maintenance and overhaul of main deck loader were capital in nature vis-i-vis revenue claimed by the assessee. The AO further held that those expenses gave benefit of enduring nature and the AO accordingly added back the same in the total income of the ASSCSSCC. CIT (A) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that since the notice was issued after four years, the same was time barred and it was not a case where the assessee had not discussed full particulars. In fact, the expenses pertaining to maintenance and overhaul on the main deck loader were clearly shown and even the matter was discussed before the AO at the time of original ;g Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

assessment. It was, thus, merely a case of change of opinion and on this premise, the AO could not reopen the original assessment. The view taken by the CIT (A) was affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the reopening of assessment in terms of Section t47 of the Act was not sustainable in law and the re- assessment proceedings were annulled. We are of the opinion that the orders of the CIT (A) as well as ITAT is without any blemish. No question of law arises. This appeal .? is accordingly dismissed. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. SEPTEMBER L6,zOtL pmc (; srKRr, J.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →