9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 200708, the petitioner had filed return of income, which was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He passed the order of assessment on 27.10.2009. To reopen such assessment the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons: "...2. During the under consideration, you had sold staff colony admeasuring 8802.00 sq.mt. (free hold land and colony building constructed thereon) for a consideration of Rs. 4,01,00,000 and claimed Long Term capital loss at Rs. 3,29,91,808/. 3. You have acquired the Capital Asset (Staff colony) for Rs. 11 lakh and the same was treated as a single common asset i.e. colony building and the entire cost thereof was fully depreciated. Now for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... created a Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debt amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000/which was claimed by you as a deduction. Total income computed before making any deduction under clause (a) of section 36(1)(viiia) and under Chapter VIA works out to () Rs. 11,15,150/[( ) 16115150) - 15000000]. Seven and onehalf per cent of the same works out to a negative figure and as such, no deduction for any provision for bad and doubtful debt is allowable to you. Thus the deduction of Rs. 1,50,00,000/under section 36(1) (viia) was not correct. You are show caused to why the deduction of Rs. 1,50,00,000/should not disallowed for the year under consideration. 6. Further, as per Auditors Certificate in Form 3 CD filed with the return, against column No.17(1)Prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a single contention viz. that the Assessing Officer was acting under the insistence of the audit party. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was not convinced about the fact that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the grounds mentioned in the reasons recorded. He was however compelled to reopen the assessment on account of audit objection which he could not ignore. 10. Since this was the sole ground pressed in service by the petitioner and was primarily based on correct factual aspects, we had summoned the original file from the department. Upon perusal of such file, following aspects emerged. I. On 16.01.2012, the audit party raised objections with the original order of assessment of the present petitioner. These aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee very reasons. Subsequently on 24.05.2012, he sent a detailed note to the audit party, justifying why the audit objections should be dropped. It is true that in the present case such resistance from the Assessing Officer came after the notice for reopening. Nevertheless, if we see entire sequence, it becomes clear that the Assessing Officer was clearly acting under the dictates of the audit party. Even after issuing the notice, he still maintained an opinion that no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. If that be so, he ought to have dropped the assessment proceedings, at least at that stage when the petitioner raised the objections which even without such objections, the Assessing Officer was convinced, were valid. 12. In ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
