Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessee's Failure Of Disclosure

Madras High Court: No Tangible Material For Reopening Of Assessment After Years To Establish Assessee's Failure Of Disclosure

The Madras High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the assessment made u/S. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, by agreeing that there was no tangible material for reopening of the assessment after years to establish that the Assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials.

The matter titled Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mr. John Ettimootil Samuel, was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, comprising Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup.

The present tax case appeal was filed by the Appellant – Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein it set aside the assessment made u/S. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 by holding that there was no failure on the part of the Respondent – Assessee to disclose fully and truly the details and particulars necessary for completing the assessment u/S. 143(3) of the Act.

The Respondent – Assessee had questioned the reopening of the assessment, after a period of four years without any tangible material to establish that the Assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all facts. It was further contended by the Respondent – Assessee that all necessary details required for completing the assessment had been furnished.

The Court agreed with the Appellate Tribunal on the fact that the reopening of the assessment was after years and there was no tangible material to establish that the Assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials, which were required for assessment at the first instance.

The Court further pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal noted that all necessary details required for completing the assessment including copies of the sale deed, were furnished by the Respondent – Assessee.

The Court therefore, concluded that there was no question of law and that the reopening of the assessment could not have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.