The Bombay High Cour tin the case observed and has held that where the notice has been issued after the expiration of four years, the onus lies on the Assessing Officer to show that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure which being on the part of the assessee in order to disclose fully and truly all the material facts which are necessary for its assessment for
that assessment year.
The bench comprising of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice M. M. Sathaye in the case observed and has stated that is not even a whisper in the reasons in order to believe that there was any such failure on the part of CitiBank to disclose fully and truly all material all the facts which are necessary
for its assessment.
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee being the body corporate which is incorporated in the United States of America and has been carrying on business in India
through its branches.
In the plea the petitioner challenged that the action of the respondent seeking to reopen the completed assessment of petitioner for the Assessment Year 1992-1993.
Further, it has also been contended by the petitioner that despite being the repeated requests for providing reasons to believe, petitioner was not provided with them.
The petitioner in the plea also contended before the court that the reassessment notice is liable to be quashed once the assessment for the entire year is being settled by following the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, KVSS. Therefore, an order was made by the Designated Authority, after application of mind as stated under Section 90, which has been complied with by making payment of the tax computed under the KVSS and there being no such question of reopening any issue that was the subject matter of the order of the Designated Authority.
On the other hand, the department contended that with regards to the declaration filed under the KVSS does not mean that thee has to be a closure.
The court in the case observed and has held that the reopening of the assessment was merely based on the basis of a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, and that the same does not constitute justification or reasons in order to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The counsel, Advocate Percy Pardiwalla appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Suresh Kumar represented the respondent.
