9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 26.12.2007 at a total income of Rs. 6090940080/-. After giving effect to ld. CIT(A)'s order the assessed income has been reduced to Rs. 5,87,04,55,500/-. Thereafter, it was noticed by the AO that claim regarding additional depreciation on CPP and Wind Mills (Energy Saving Devices) were wrongly made. Accordingly, after recording the requisite reasons a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.02.2012. The assessee submitted vide letter dated 10.10.2012 that the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2005-06 on 29.10.2005 may be treated as a return filed in response to this notice. The assessee-company requested the AO to provide a copy of reasons for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. A copy of reasons was supplied to the assessee-company. The objections raised against initiation of reassessment proceedings were rejected. The reassessment order was framed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 6,17,13,91,709/-. In this order the A.O. has disallowed additional depreciation of Rs. 3,00,93,62,091/- on CPPs, which had been allowed in the original assessment order. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(c) the AO is debarred from initiating reassessment proceedings, particularly, when no new material fact comes to light and the assessee has not failed to disclose all the material facts. In the light of the above submissions it has been prayed that, although on merits the issues stand covered, in the favour of the assessee by various decisions, the reassessment is liable to be quashed because it is based on invalid assumption of jurisdiction on being authorities below-initio void. 6. Per contra, ld. CIT(DR) Dr. Sehgal did not and could not dispute the above mentioned facts apropos the legal ground. But he still supported the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. 7. After circumspecting the entire record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, we have culled out the following facts: (i) the assessee disclosed complete and true facts of the incomes pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06. (ii) That no new fact much less any material fact ahs come to light and is in the possession of the AO other than what has been disclosed by the assessee-company (iii) that the issues regarding additional depreciations on CPPs stand covered in the favour of the assessee. 7. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. The matter relating to grant of exemption u/s 80IA in respect of income of CPP were subject matter of consideration in many assessments and appeals for the year under consideration as well as various past and subsequent years. The question relating to allocation of head office expenses, eligibility for grant of deduction u/s 80IA etc. were subject matter of consideration in the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings in the case of the assessee company. The Officers of the Department including the AO and the Commissioners never disputed the correctness of the claim of additional depreciation on CPP and have allowed the same, and also did not dispute the correctness of the additional depreciation so allowed by the AO and also did not dispute the correctness of the quantum of deduction allowed u/s 80IA, as has now been disputed in the reason recorded u/s 147 with reference to the amount of electricity duty payable on consumption on self generated energy. The reasons so recorded are patently invalid and are based on mere change of opinion. An attempt was being made to review the original assessment order without any valid basis whatsoever. No power of review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f review. The ld. A.R. relied on the following judgments which support our above findings in which it has been held that assessment completed after scrutiny u/s 143(3) cannot be reopened u/s 147 merely on the basis of change of opinion or merely to review the earlier decision passed by the A.O: a. CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (FB); b. CIT V/s Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); c. Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC); d. ITO & Ors Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 [SC] e. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); f. Judgment dt. 21.8.2008 in the case of CIT V/s Bigabass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti, registered as D.B. I.T.A. No. 73 of 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court; g. Northen Strips Ltd. & Anr. V/s ITO. (2011) 331 ITR 224 (Del.); h. Rallis India Ltd. V/s ACIT. (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Born.); i.Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. V/s DCIT. (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom.); j. Asian Paints Ltd. V/s DCIT & Anr. (2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.); k. Cartini India Ltd. V/s ACIT & Ors. (2009) 314 ITR 275 (Bom.); l. Sanghvi Swiss Refills (P) Ltd. V/s Smt. Arti Handa. (2006) 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
