TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It has not been indicated as to what particulars were not disclosed by the assessee. All the relevant accounts and records were available for consideration and the assessing officer had considered the entire material and he gave a detailed assessment order running into five pages. It cannot be inferred from these facts that the petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of the material particulars necessary for assessment. With regard to the second point we find that the assessing officer has not even indicated the extent of the alleged escapement of income. Furthermore, the assessing officer has once again stated that on “perusal” of the notes to the accounts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Assessing Officer disposing the objections raised by the petitioner. 2. The assessment in respect of the petitioner s income was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2010. The assessing officer had made certain additions on account of section 40(a)(ia) ( ₹ 1,55,94,534/-), under section 14A (Rs.1,55,603/-) and on account of extra depreciation claimed on computer peripherals (Rs. 6,87,043/-). 3. The impugned notice under section 148 was, as mentioned above, issued on 21.03.2013, beyond four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Consequently, the first proviso to section 147 of the said Act would come into play. The said proviso stipulates that no action shall be taken under section 147 after the expiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lized against the same has been shown at NIL. From the above, it is clear that the assessee should have been capitalized. The assessee however, claimed the same as revenue expenses instead thereby making a wrong claim. It is pertinent here to mention that similar claim of the assessee regarding the interest expenses has been disallowed by the AO amounting to ₹ 24,73,568/- for AY 2009-10. Hence it is clear that the assessee failed to disclose the true particulars of its income on this issue and the same was not dwelled upon by the AO during the original assessment proceedings and no findings were given on this issue by the AO. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that taxable income to the tune ₹ 25,07,124/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned issues to the tune of ₹ 3,46,28,674/- has escaped assessment and I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act. To complete the narration of facts, we may point out that the petitioner had filed objections on 22.08.2013 and they were disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.03.2014. 5. From the purported reasons it appears that the assessing officer in the first instance had raised an issue as to whether the interest payments were to be on the revenue account or the capital account. The petitioner had claimed it as a revenue expense and that had been allowed in the original assessment proceedings. The extent of the claim was ₹ 25,07,124/-. As can be seen from paragraph 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
