Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 928 - HC - Income TaxValidity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Capitalising the payment made - HELD THAT:- We do not understand how this amount paid as compensation could ever be capitalised in the books of petitioner. Be that as it may, during the assessment proceedings the details have been provided to the Assessing Officer regarding surrender of the lease and payments made - To the petition is annexed a letter addressed by Petitioner to ACIT to explain why payment of ₹ 10 crores towards lease land at Valsad is to be considered as revenue in nature and allowable u/s 37(1) and also explaining the back ground regarding surrender of lease to Atul Ltd and also providing a copy of the lease agreement. In the said letter, petitioner has also referred to almost 7 replies addressed to the notices received from respondent no.1. Therefore, this has been a subject of consideration during the assessment proceedings. As held in Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. Claiming 15% depreciation on the block of office equipments against allowable rate of 10% - There can be no non disclosure on the part of petitioner at all. The assessment order dated 29th December 2009 contains a computation of depreciation - there can never be a situation of failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts by petitioner. AO stated that claim of assessee is not acceptable and the depreciation is recomputed as per the stand taken by the Department in earlier years as the issue has not yet been decided at various appellate stages - The Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society[1979 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that even if according to respondent no.1 there was an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give power to the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment Allowability of prior period expenses - Petitioner has addressed to the ACIT after referring to personal hearing as well as 7 earlier communications and notice issued by respondent no.1 under Section 142(1) of the Act, explained why the amount of ₹ 30,15,135/- reported by the Tax Auditor was part of the amount of ₹ 1,13,73,436/- as provisions for employee retention strategy and was rightly considered as disallowable in computing business income and hence the amount has not been separately disallowed as prior period expenditure. Therefore, once again this has been subject of consideration during the assessment proceedings and as noted earlier, once a query raised during the assessment proceeding and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. Change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Reopening notice quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|