Reopening beyound four years based on subsequnet clarification of CBDT is posil

[prashantmaharishi]

Whether deduction granted  to the asessee  in original 143(3) assessment proceedings  after detailed discussion.  later on the same deduction CBDt clarifies  that  in such condition deduction is not admissible. This clarification is sent by CBDT to all the chief commissioners. later on based on the same AO issues 148 Notices  and reopen the assessment  for withdrwaing the deduction beyond four years ?
Whether the action of AO is right and 148 based on subsequent clarification of CBDT  can make AO to reopen the cases beyound four years .

[ashutosh majumdar]

Which clarification is this? Is it a hypothetical situation or a real life clarification?

Anyway, the jurisdictional condition that has to be satisfied is that there must be a "failure on the part of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts". If that is not the case, reopening is not permissible. This has been emphasized even in cases where there was a retrospective amendment.

[prashantmaharishi]

there is a clarification dated 6/1/2011 that ICD and CFS are niethre port / Inland port and are also not faciltie of storage, loaidng unloading on port there by shutting door for deduction  u/s 80 IA (4) to these assessee. later on delhi highcourt and all cargo decisions have come.

[pawansingla]

There is no question of reopening beyond four years. Because the failure was on the part of the assessing officer and not on assessee.There are various judgements on the issue.

[Sunil Maloo]

Reopening beyond 4 years on basis of retrospective amendment not justified if assessee has not failed to disclose material facts: Ref Sadbhav Engineering vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

[rajul5234]

Reopening even within 4 yrs. from end of A.Y. is not justified if based on clarificatory amendment inserted for removal of doubt . Same is not a NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL  within scope and purview of Kelvinator's case at 320 ITR 561(S.C.). This is held by Guj. H. C. in case of Ganesh Housing Corp.