TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - I.T.A .No.-1476/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh.Vijay Kumar Singla, CA For The Revenue : Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.01.2014 of CIT(A)-2, Faridabad pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year on various grounds. (B). The original return was filed by the assessee on 29.10.2005 declaring income of ₹ 41,97,398/-. The assessment order u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short Act ) was passed on 19.12.2007 wherein total income was assessed at ₹ 52,74,330/-. Subsequently, the order was rectified vide order dated 10.03.2008 u/s 154 of the Act under where income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 50,89,020/-. The re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, were initiated by notice dated 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act. Regarding reasons for initiation of re-assessment proceedings, the AO has stated as under in the assessment order:- The following reasons were recorded before is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that assessment year. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued after getting necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad. (B.1). In the assessment order dated 31.03.2013 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, the AO reassessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 74,43,370/- wherein the following additions were made:- (a) an addition of ₹ 13,66,775/- on account of disallowance of interest paid on fund borrowed for acquiring of capital assets; (b) an addition of ₹ 9,87,575/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act claimed by the assessee on DEPB/DDB. (B.2). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 22.01.2014, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved again, the assessee has filed this appeal in ITAT. In the course of the appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee filed a Paper Book containing 162 pages. The assessee also filed written submissions. The assessee moreover filed copy of Audit Objection raised by Revenue Audit which led to reopening of assessment. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld.AR appearing for the assessee r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to figures, do not amount to application of mind. 6. On perusal of computation sheet enclosed with the return shows the complete facts have been narrated in the computation sheet, wherein deduction u/s 80IB has been claimed and even audit report in Form 10CCB have been furnished. The deduction u/'s 80IB was allowed in original assessment u/s 143 and further rectification u/s 154 was on the basis of ITR, information provided, computation sheet, Form 10CCB and AO's attempt of reopening this case on the same facts and factual material is based upon change of opinion. 7. It is not at all a case of failure on the part of the assessee in disclosure of material facts. If at all there was any failure, it would be on the part of AO in not appreciating the facts and applicable legal position, in the manner as the AO want now at the reassessment stage. 8. The AO cannot be given benefits of its own wrong, and particularly in those cases which are covered by the first provisio to Sec-147. The position of law in this regard is well settled on the basis of umpteen numbers of judgments from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Courts and various other Courts of the Country. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DIA) P. LTD. us.DCIT [2015] 378 ITR 318 (Del) 40. GLOBAL SIGNAL CABLES (INDIA) P. LTD. us.DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 609 (Del) 41. BBC WORLD NEWS LTD.(formerly known as BBC World Ltd.) vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [2014] 362 ITR 577 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3C ABOVE Judgement No. Judgement Name 21. GKN Drivershafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) 22. Allana Cold Storage Ltd. v ITO [2006] 287 ITR 1 (Bom.) 23. Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. B.L.Meena, ITO [2006] 287 ITR 337 (Delhi) 24. IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 547 (Bom.) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3D ABOVE Judgement No. Judgement Name 14. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi). 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANOTHER[2016] 381 ITR 387 (Del) 36 CIT vs.ARVIND REMEDIES LTD. [2015] 378 ITR 547 (Mad) 37 CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD. vs.DCIT [2015] 378 ITR 318 (Del) 42 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) (B.4). The Ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and relied upon their orders. (C). We have heard both the sides patiently. We have also considered all materials on record. The central issue in dispute is whether initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act vide aforesaid notice dated 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act is valid in law. We find that the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated vide notice issued on 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act. This is after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. On perusal of Proviso to section 147 of the Act, it is obvious that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act cannot be initiated after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
