Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 490 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Eligibility of claim of provisions for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) - Held that:- Clearly the issue of the petitioner's claim for provision for bad or doubtful debt came up for discussion during the original assessment proceedings and the assessee made a detailed explanation why such claim should not be disallowed. The Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment made no disallowance and thus, accepted the explanation of the assessee. It is a different matter that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference to this aspect in the order of assessment. In case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2012 (9) TMI 69 - Gujarat High Court ] wherein held in a situation where the Assessing Officer during scrutiny assessment, notices a claim of exemption, deduction or such like made by the assessee, having some prima facie doubt raises queries, asking the assessee to satisfy him with respect to such a claim and thereafter, does not make any addition in the final order of assessment, he can be stated to have formed an opinion whether or not in the final order he gives his reasons for not making the addition Double claim of brought forward depreciation - Held that:- Assessing Officer made no disallowance on the said claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Tapi Bank of ₹ 8.28 lacs in the original assessment. Quite apart from this, we do not see any material, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer asserts that the brought forward loss of ₹ 28.58 lacs includes the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 8.28 lacs. The two are independent separate figures. In fact, it was pointed out by the assessee in the communication dated 30.04.2010 it was a sum of ₹ 7.98 lacs of loss of Tapi Bank which was included in the brought forward loss of ₹ 28.58 lacs and which the assessee upon noticing error surrendered. Additionally we also do not find any failure on part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, principal condition required to be satisfied for reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years. On all counts thus, the petition must succeed
|