Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 285 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - whether the interest payments were to be on the revenue account or the capital account? - Held that:- The petitioner had claimed it as a revenue expense and that had been allowed in the original assessment proceedings. The extent of the claim was ₹ 25,07,124. As can be seen from paragraph 2 of the reasons, the Assessing Officer has done nothing but to re-examine the records which were already available and has arrived at a different conclusion in stating that the interest expenses ought to have been capitalised. This, by itself, to our mind does not amount to any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It has not been indicated as to what particulars were not disclosed by the assessee. All the relevant accounts and records were available for consideration and the Assessing Officer had considered the entire material and he gave a detailed assessment order running into five pages. It cannot be inferred from these facts that the petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of the material particulars necessary for assessment. Valuation of the jobs in progress - With regard to the second point raised in the purported reasons, we find that the Assessing Officer has not even indicated the extent of the alleged escapement of income. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has once again stated that on "perusal" of the notes to the accounts of the assessee and particularly the note at serial number 9 of the auditor's report, it is seen that the assessee has booked the professional fees less than the job in progress brought forward from the last year on the ultimate completion by an amount of ₹ 3,21,21,550. Nothing further has been indicated apart from this fact which was there on record even in the original assessment. Therefore, once again we are of the view that the allegations of the Assessing Officer in the purported reasons that the assessee had failed to disclose full and true particulars of his income, is without any basis. Consequently, in view of the provisions of the first proviso to section 147 of the said Act, the Revenue cannot be permitted to reopen the assessment as the necessary pre-condition for doing so in a case which is beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year has not been fulfilled. - Decided in favour of assessee
|