CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

348 ITR 485High Court2012#382 most cited

What is CIT v. Usha International Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment is invalid due to 'mere change of opinion' if an issue was raised during original assessment but no addition was made, implying the issue was examined. However, if a subject matter was not examined and no opinion was formed, the principle of 'change of opinion' does not apply.

231

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Usha International Ltd · Section 147 · Section 148 · change of opinion · mere change of opinion · reassessment validity · query raised no addition · issue not examined · reason to believe · Kelvinator principle · fresh tangible material · escapement of income

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 200210 Taxmann 188254 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 151Section 144BSection 271(1)(c)Section 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147kelvinatormaterial facts necessary for assessmentmere change of opinionsanctioning authorityfull and true disclosurechange of opinionlive linktangible materialescapement of incomereason to believe

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha International Ltd.

Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 550/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…This contention failed to convince the Hon’ble Supreme Court because the voluntary surrender was made in view of detection by the AO. Similar is the position regarding another judgment of the Hon’ble High 24 Court in CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. (2012) 254 CTR 509 (Del), relied (supra) and Usha International Ltd. (supra) are not relevant in the background of the facts as are instantly prevailing. It is not a case where the assessee either surrendered any income or filed a revised return offering the income. Nor did the assessee come forward to surrender the amount of Rs.3.31 crore and odd. On the contra…

M/S. Vijay Power Generators Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 4086/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahui.T.A. No. 4086/Del/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 M/S Vijay Power Generators Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1), 5, Park End, (Opp.) Preet Vihar, New Delhi Metro Pillar No. 101, Vikas Marg, New Delhi – 11- 0902 (Pan: Aaacv0191N) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanat Kapoor, Adv., Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…of the assessment of the assessee. It is a settled law that merely change of opinion is not permissible under the law. This view is supported by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) [Full Bench] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited in Appeal Nos. 2009-2011 of 2003 reported in 320 ITR 561. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as explained above and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Ful…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Invensys India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4132/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Invensys India (P) Ltd., Circle-11(1), No.18, Kotla Lane, Vs. C.R.Building, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabcs8027M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.A.K. Saroha, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh Salil Kapoor, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 148

…elieve' in place of the words ' for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion' . Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same." Further it is held by honorable Delhi high court in case of CIT V Usha International limited 348 ITR 485 that assessments cannot be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act even within four years, if an assessee had furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to the income alleged to have escaped assessment, if the original assessment was made under section 143(3). So long as the assessee has furnished…

Loyalty Solutions & Research Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

WP/6565/2015HC Karnataka11 Feb 2016

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.6565 Of 2015 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.6566 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.6565/2015 Between: Loyalty Solutions & Research Private Limited, 4Th & 5Th Floor, Kabra Excelsior, 6Th A, 7Th Main, 1St Block, Koramangala Industrial Area, Bangalore 560 034. Represented Herein By Its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Pramod Mahanta. …Petitioner

Section 147Section 148

…lighted by the assessee, it is deemed to have been considered by the assessing officer. In this regard, reliance is placed on a full bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Usha International Limited, (2012)348 ITR 485 (Delhi). Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Sd/- JUDGE nv…

Loyalty Solutions & Research Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

WP/6566/2015HC Karnataka11 Feb 2016

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.6565 Of 2015 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.6566 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.6565/2015 Between: Loyalty Solutions & Research Private Limited, 4Th & 5Th Floor, Kabra Excelsior, 6Th A, 7Th Main, 1St Block, Koramangala Industrial Area, Bangalore 560 034. Represented Herein By Its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Pramod Mahanta. …Petitioner

Section 147Section 148

…lighted by the assessee, it is deemed to have been considered by the assessing officer. In this regard, reliance is placed on a full bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Usha International Limited, (2012)348 ITR 485 (Delhi). Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Sd/- JUDGE nv…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…r jurisdiction upon the AO to reopen the proceeding “without anything further” as that would amount to “giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong”. Page 34 of 37 (v) In CIT v. Usha International Ltd (348 ITR 485) (Del), Full Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that there can be cases where an AO may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/original proceedings may have examined the subject matter because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. (vi) In Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(368…

Gas & Power Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1118/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1118/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Gas & Power The Ito, Ward 1(1)(4), बनाम/ Investment Co. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Asian Building, Mumbai-40 020 Ground Floor, 17, R. Kamani Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg 3843J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Shri Mahendra Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Miss Bharti Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer RathiFor Respondent: Miss Bharti Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 43BSection 619B

…f notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the 11 AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the init…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 386/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…edings clearly fall within the ambit of change of opinion and are therefore are bad in law. Recently Hon’ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High 34 ITA No.771, 787 & 1107/Del./2012 ITA No.218 & 386/Del./2013 Court in case of Usha International Ltd reported in 348 ITR 485(Del) has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with w…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 218/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…edings clearly fall within the ambit of change of opinion and are therefore are bad in law. Recently Hon’ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High 34 ITA No.771, 787 & 1107/Del./2012 ITA No.218 & 386/Del./2013 Court in case of Usha International Ltd reported in 348 ITR 485(Del) has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with w…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 787/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…edings clearly fall within the ambit of change of opinion and are therefore are bad in law. Recently Hon’ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High 34 ITA No.771, 787 & 1107/Del./2012 ITA No.218 & 386/Del./2013 Court in case of Usha International Ltd reported in 348 ITR 485(Del) has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with w…

M/S. Cj International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 771/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…edings clearly fall within the ambit of change of opinion and are therefore are bad in law. Recently Hon’ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High 34 ITA No.771, 787 & 1107/Del./2012 ITA No.218 & 386/Del./2013 Court in case of Usha International Ltd reported in 348 ITR 485(Del) has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.J. International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1107/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate and Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR

…edings clearly fall within the ambit of change of opinion and are therefore are bad in law. Recently Hon’ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High 34 ITA No.771, 787 & 1107/Del./2012 ITA No.218 & 386/Del./2013 Court in case of Usha International Ltd reported in 348 ITR 485(Del) has held as under: “11. Accordingly, we hold that the following observations in Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. (supra) do not reflect the correct legal position: "In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us and the observations made by the High Court of Gujarat with w…

Tara Chand Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 2282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Tara Chand Jain -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ackpj1876H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: David Z. Chawngthu, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…e of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 6.15. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…66, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) I think this thread runs through the various provisions of the Act. But Explanation 1 to the section confines…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…of the reason recorded, the impugned reassessment is nothing but change of opinion on the same set facts which is not permissible in the eyes of law in of the latest judicial decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC). 7. Further, it is relevant and appropriate to make reference to letter dated 13.03.2007 issued by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings pursuant to order u/s 264. As per this letter, the AO has specifically made reference…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…of the reason recorded, the impugned reassessment is nothing but change of opinion on the same set facts which is not permissible in the eyes of law in of the latest judicial decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del)(FB) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT vs ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. 348 ITR 299 (SC). 7. Further, it is relevant and appropriate to make reference to letter dated 13.03.2007 issued by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings pursuant to order u/s 264. As per this letter, the AO has specifically made reference…

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3338/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Infrastructure Leasing & Acit-10(1), Financial Services Ltd., The Il बनाम/ Mumbai - & Fs Centre, G. Glock, C-22, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaci0989F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 3.17. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the…

E.I. Dupont Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…15. Based on above chart it is apparent that there is complete information asked by the AO, assessee replied, and no adverse view was taken. On the same issues now, reassessment notice is issued. Honourable Delhi high court in CIT V Usha International Limited 348 ITR 485 has laid down the following propositions of law: 10 CO. No. 2357/Del/2011 E.I.DuPont P. Ltd. (i) The expression 'change of opinion' postulates formation of opinion and then a change thereof. In the context of section 147, it implies that the Assessing Officer should have formed an opinion at the first instance, i.e., in the proceedings under sec…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S E.I. Dupont India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, Amit Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40

…15. Based on above chart it is apparent that there is complete information asked by the AO, assessee replied, and no adverse view was taken. On the same issues now, reassessment notice is issued. Honourable Delhi high court in CIT V Usha International Limited 348 ITR 485 has laid down the following propositions of law: 10 CO. No. 2357/Del/2011 E.I.DuPont P. Ltd. (i) The expression 'change of opinion' postulates formation of opinion and then a change thereof. In the context of section 147, it implies that the Assessing Officer should have formed an opinion at the first instance, i.e., in the proceedings under sec…

Golden Tobacco Ltd ( Formerly Gtc Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, on the grounds as discussed above

ITA 5859/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Gupta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] and Orient Craft Ltd [(2003)354 ITR 536 (Delhi)] followed, Usha International [(2012)348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB)] referred)” 6.15. In the case of CIT vs Jyoti Devi 218 CTR 264, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that since Revenue could not point out any information or material which had subsequently come to the notice of the AO to enable him to form the requisite belief that any income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, therefore, the…