Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 415 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Deduction u/s 10B - substance over form - failure to provide conclusive picture regarding commencement of manufacturing activity - Single member bench of the HC has observed that, Every non disclosure of material facts will not or cannot be a justifiable reason for reopening sustainable under judicial scrutiny. - HELD THAT:- There has been a discrepancy in the dates mentioned in Form 56G filed by the assessee. There can be no escape from this fact and the assessee should accept this mistake. In fact this Form is required to be submitted through the Chartered Accountant as a report under Section 10B - Utmost care should have been taken before the details are submitted. It may be true that the assessee can now take a stand that substance over form is to be considered but what is important is that the assessee at the first instance had a duty to give proper and correct details. We may say that the assessee failed in doing so. Be that as it may, what is required on the part of the Assessing Officer is not to go mechanically by the details disclosed by the assessee in the statutory form and or for that matter signed and certified by the Chartered Accountant. AO being cast with a statutory duty an enquiry is required to test the correctness of the disclosure made in such statutory forms. This is why the concept of substance over form was always preferred by Courts while dealing with such matters. The second mistake which the assessee committed, which had invited the problem, was not mentioning the correct date of commencement of commercial production in its reply dated 02.02.2007 and this again was submitted through the very same Chartered Accountant. In the reply, there is a vague statement with regard to the commencement of manufacturing activity and what has been stated is that the assessee commenced manufacturing activity only after 01.04.2000. Thus assessee appears to have not been very seriously contesting the matter at the relevant point of time. Wisdom dawned upon the assessee only after the appellant passed the order dated 13.02.2017. It is thereafter the assessee through their Chartered Accountant gave the exact date of production/manufacture as 25.05.2000. Keeping aside all these issues, we have examined the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Bench and we note with approval the findings of the learned Single Bench in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned order. The above finding rendered by the learned Single Bench is just and proper.
|