It Is Agreed That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed In View Of The Judgment Of The Apex Court In The Case Of M/S. Rotork Controls India (P) Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai Reported In 314 Itr 62

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.21 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income tax.Vs.M/s.Voltas Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Rajesh Poojary i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2012 PC: It is agreed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai reported in 314 ITR 62. 2Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ) ( S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.) FOR APPROVAL AND DISCUSSIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6094 OF 2010RIDER 17 It was contended that as the re-opening of the assessment is beyond the period of four years, the Assessing Officer would only get jurisdiction if the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. This satisfaction has to be found in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. It was contended that the reasons recorded on 2nd June, 2004 for re-opening of the assessment did not record in specific terms that there was a failure on the part of the Appellant to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. On the basis, it is contended that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 47. 18It is true that the words “failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts” are not found in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. However, the reasons do record... “as per information available with this office, the assessee had sold the rig during this assessment year for USD 3m. and has earned capital gains on the same”. In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the appellant had not disclosed the transaction and the income arising therefrom. It is clear from the above that the Assessing Officer has stated that he came to know of the same “as per the information available with this office”, meaning thereby that he came to know of the same independently. It must be borne in mind that “words disclosed fully and truly all material facts” are not magic words. Therefore, if on reading the reasons recorded as a whole communications that there was a failure to furnish information truly and fully during the original assessment proceedings then the Assessing Officer has satisfied the requirement of prima facie satisfaction for reopening the assessment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case no substantial question of law arises with regard to Question Nos. 1 and 2.