TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction on account of interest on labour welfare fund and it has been allowed excess deduction of investment allowance inasmuch as investment allowance was wrongly allowed on well, tanks and trolley. It was submitted by the learned authorised representative of the assessee that in course of original assessments, the AO had allowed these deductions after verifying the informations submitted by the assessee and after applying his mind. It was submitted that the assessee had furnished complete information about interest on labour welfare fund in the note below the computation of total income. The AO had made further query on this issue in course of assessment proceedings and the assessee had furnished further clarification. As regards inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no justification for reopening the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Under the circumstances, the orders of CIT(A) on this issue are set aside and the additions made are deleted. Asst. yr. 1985-86 5. In this assessment year, though assessment was reopened under s. 147, no further addition was made. Therefore, the learned authorized representative of the assessee did not press the grounds of appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being infructuous. Asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 6. The AO in his order under s. 143(3)/147 had made addition of Rs. 3,77,235 and Rs. 4,81,185 respectively in asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The learned CIT(A) upheld the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t least deduction to the extent of disallowance made i.e. Rs. 4,81,185 should be allowed. The learned Departmental Representative strongly objected to the fresh claim made by the learned authorised representative of the assessee under s. 152 of the IT Act, which was never made before the AO. He also submitted that the income shown in the audited report cannot be treated as income rightly liable to tax and relief under s. 152(2) cannot be given. He also submitted with specified reference to asst. yr. 1987-88 that on the plea of making claim under s. 152(2), the assessee cannot agitate an issue which had reached its finality. It was further submitted that during the original assessment for asst. yr. 1987-88, the claim under s. 32AB was disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was overassessed or was assessed at a higher income that could be said to be correct income. We are also of the view that under the plea of claim under s. 152(2), the assessee is trying to take up the issue of deduction under s. 32AB in asst. yr. 1987-88, which has already reached its finality. Such action is not permissible under the provisions of proviso to s. 152(2) and hence, cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances, we reject the claim of the assessee seeking relief under s. 152(2). 8. In the result, appeals for the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 are allowed and appeals for 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 366 to 371/Ind/1996; asst. yrs, 1982-83 to 1987-88 9. In these appeals, the Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
