TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue disclosure of all material facts. Note-2 to the accounts which explained the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock. In fact, the AO himself acknowledged the mistake of overlooking that note. He, therefore, accepted the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Act and rectified the assessment order by the subsequent order dated 4th March, 2013. These facts have been completely overlooked by the AO while seeking to reopen the assessment. The observation that the Assessee did not make a disclosure of the changed method of valuation is plainly contrary to the records. On the face of it, the reopening is unsustainable in law. There is another question urged by the Petitioner regarding the failure of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st March, 2013, the Petitioner filed an application before the AO under Section 154 of the Act, for rectification of the assessment order dated 15th February 2013, inter alia, on the ground of wrongful addition on account of its closing stock. 5. It may be mentioned at this stage that until March 31, 2008, the agricultural seeds processed by the Petitioner for production of hybrid seeds, had been valued on the basis of the cost of cultivation and processing costs without considering the parent seed charges. However, for AY 2009-10, while computing the valuation of closing stock, the agricultural seeds were valued on the basis of the cost of cultivation and processing costs including parent seed charges. The result of this change was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m its books of accounts and found to be correct. Accordingly it needs to be allowed a deduction of ₹ 142995311/- and addition of ₹ 7,33,48,340/- made in original assessment order needs to be deleted. 8. On 9th March 2016, another AO issued a notice under Section 147 of the Act to the Petitioner stating that he had reason to believe that the Petitioner s income chargeable to tax for the AY in question had escaped assessment. In response to this notice, on 5th April 2016, the Petitioner, while protesting against the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act, asked that the earlier return of income be treated as a return in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Petitioner sought the reasons for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (for short 'the Act'). Prima facie they do not disclose any tangible material and are rather premised upon the calculation claim made by the assessee/petitioner in the course of a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act. 9. In these circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed not to enforce the directions pursuant to the assessment order impugned in these proceedings till the next date of hearing. 10. List on 24.03.2017. 11. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 24th March, 2017 when time was sought for filing counter affidavit. However, till date, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Considering that two opportunities have already been granted, the Court is not inclined to grant any further ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
