TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed under section 143(1)( a ) on 31st March, 1995. The assessee had revised the return of income on 27th October, 1995 in order to claim the set off of brought forward losses. The assessment was made under section 143(3) vide order dated 28th December, 1995. In the return of income, assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-I for the first time, as in earlier years, there were no profits. The Assessing Officer in para 3 of the assessment order recorded as under : "The claim of the assessee under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act has been made for the first time this year since this is the sixth year of the assessee after commencing production and prior to this there has been no income." Subsequently, assessment was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. The addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 148 on account of disallowing the deduction under section 80-I is, therefore, ordered to be deleted." No reason was, however, recorded by the CIT(A) on merits. Revenue is in appeal. 4. The ld. D.R. contended before us that the CIT(A) has wrongly cancelled the assessment made under section 143(3), read with section 147. It was contended that though assessment under section 143(3) had been made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not disclosed the relevant facts relating to the taking over of the entire plant from the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., and had wrongly claimed deduction under section 80-I. According to the ld. D.R., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hand contended that the Assessing Officer had made the assessment under section 143(3) and allowed deduction under section 80-I and, therefore, subsequent withdrawal of the same by issue of notice under section 148 was invalid. It was contended that change of opinion on same set of facts is not permissible under section 147. For this, reliance was placed on the following decisions : ( i ) Mercury Travels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 533 (Cal.); ( ii ) Duli Chand Singhania v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 192 (Punj. Har.); ( iii ) Vikas Printery v. Asstt. DIT (Inv.) [2004] 270 ITR 68 (Guj.). It was further contended that the CIT(A) in this case has not decided the issue on merits though raised before him. It was pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected from the income-tax file of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. and assessee was con- fronted with the facts found in course of such investigation. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-I in assessment year 1994-95 as if the plant had been constructed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction on the same basis without any investigation. Since subsequently, some facts had come to the notice of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which prima facie belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment was justified. The Assessing Officer had accordingly issued notice under section 148. The mere fact that assessment had earlier been made under section 143(3) does not debar the reopen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be investigated by the Court. Their Lordships of Punjab Haryana High Court relied upon the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court for arriving at the decision : ( i ) Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC); ( ii ) Raymond Woollen Mill Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). 8. The decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 192, relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee, in our view, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In that case, their Lordships of the High Court held that assessee had disclosed entire material facts necessary for assessment and, therefore, even if excess deduction had been allowed reopening was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
