Full Text
#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
JUDGMENT
(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 2011:DHC:11884-DB 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 reassessment 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 L[6],zOtL pmc (; srKRr, J.