Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessee’s plan to expand its product range into higher horse power tractor segment, higher horse power tractors, etc. and the part of the expenditure thereupon, revenue or capital in nature, she pointed out that there were two more reasons given by the AO in his “reasons to believe” - it is not permissible for the learned counsel for the Revenue to now raise such a contention. - 958 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2010 - Represented:- Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Akansha Aggarwal and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral) 1. The respondent-assessee has filed the return of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enged this order by an filing an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Main contention of the assessee was that all the relevant facts in this behalf were placed before the AO when the assessment was carried out in the first instance and the AO had taken a categorical view that the entire expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure and therefore, liable for deduction. Relevant discussion contained in the order of the CIT(A) runs as follows: "3.3 On verification of the assessment record it was found to be correct that the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) was completed by the AO vide its order dated 28-03-2002 and during that proceedings the claim of the appellant in respect of the expenditure incurred in reference to developm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. Law on reassessment is well settled that mere change of pinion does not confer jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment on the interpretation of a particular provision earlier adopted by the AO. The scope of Section 148 does not extend to reviewing its earlier order sou moto irrespective of there being any material to come to a different conclusion apart from just having second thought about the inference drawn earlier. It has already been pointed out that it is not disputed that the claim of the assessee was looked into by the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and the AO had formed an opinion of the issue and had allowed the claim of the assessee. Reliance by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actors, etc. and the part of the expenditure thereupon, revenue or capital in nature, she pointed out that there were two more reasons given by the AO in his "reasons to believe", which are as under: "1. The assessee has created the provision of Rs.190 lakh towards gratuity but only Rs.75 lakh were actually paid. Excise provision of Rs. 115 lakh towards gratuity being an unascertained liability should have been disallowed. 2. While calculating effect of newly inserted section 145A an amount of Rs.3,53,56,437/- on account of excise duty payable on opening stock of raw material, work in progress, finished goods etc as on 01.04.1999, and there was no addition on account of excise duty in valuation of inventory as on 31.03.98, the deduction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or before the Tribunal. Therefore, such a plea cannot be allowed for the first time in this appeal. 11. Second reason is that the appellant has itself annexed "office note" of the DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi to the assessment order, which discloses as to why no additions on the first two reasons could be made at all. Relevant portion of this order reads as under: "1. Excess provision of Rs.115 lakh towards gratuity should have been disallowed. It may, however be mentioned that in the normal computation of income, the assessee has already disallowed the same under the head disallowance u/s 40A(7) amounting to Rs.1,14,95,024/-. Further even for the purpose of computation of income u/s 115JA, the same is allowable as the same was made on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates