{"id":3372,"date":"2011-06-27T14:22:07","date_gmt":"2011-06-27T08:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3372"},"modified":"2011-06-27T14:22:07","modified_gmt":"2011-06-27T08:52:07","slug":"titanor-components-limited-vs-acit-bombay-high-court-at-goa-despite-wrong-claim-s-147-reopening-invalid-if-failure-to-disclose-not-alleged","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/titanor-components-limited-vs-acit-bombay-high-court-at-goa-despite-wrong-claim-s-147-reopening-invalid-if-failure-to-disclose-not-alleged\/","title":{"rendered":"Titanor Components Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court At Goa)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=460\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=460&varname2=titanor_147_reopening.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (titanor_147_reopening.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nDespite \u201cWrong Claim\u201d, s. 147 reopening invalid if failure to disclose not alleged<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The AO reopened the assessment after the end of 4 years from the assessment year on the ground that the assessee had \u201c<em>wrongly claimed deduction u\/s 80IA<\/em>\u201d and that \u201c<em>long term capital gains had been wrongly set-off<\/em>\u201d. There was <em>no allegation in the recorded reasons that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts<\/em> necessary for the assessment. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the reopening. HELD quashing the s. 148 notice:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>There is a well known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts<\/strong>. It is only in the latter case that the AO is entitled to proceed u\/s 147. The power conferred by s. 147 <strong>does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment<\/strong> made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, it is necessary for the AO to first state that there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. <strong>If he does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed u\/s 147<\/strong>. (<strong>Hindustan Lever<\/strong> 268 ITR 332 (Bom) followed).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>There is a well known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts<\/strong>. It is only in the latter case that the AO is entitled to proceed u\/s 147. The power conferred by s. 147 <strong>does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment<\/strong> made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Further, it is necessary for the AO to first state that there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. <strong>If he does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed u\/s 147<\/strong>. (<strong>Hindustan Lever<\/strong> 268 ITR 332 (Bom) followed)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/titanor-components-limited-vs-acit-bombay-high-court-at-goa-despite-wrong-claim-s-147-reopening-invalid-if-failure-to-disclose-not-alleged\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}