TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner claimed deductions including an amount of Rs.50,07,669 on account of 'excise duty paid in advance allowable under section 43B". This return was considered under section 143(1)(a). An intimation was sent to the assessee vide letter dated August 24, 1999. On August 11, 2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No. 2, gave a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner. The assessee was required to file its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 within a period of 31 days. The petitioner filed the return on August 22, 2000. A copy has been produced as annexure P-4 with the writ petition. In response to this return filed under section 148 of the Act, the petitioner was serve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been averred that the notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were served on the petitioner on September 11, 2000, and not on August 11, 2000. The allegation that the Assessing Officer has rejected the petitioner's submissions is not correct. The objections raised by "the assessee will be considered at the time of finalisation of the reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961". It has been further stated that a perusal 'of the assessment record for the assessment year 1998-99 revealed that while computing its taxable income, the assessee had deducted a sum of Rs.50,07,669 from the profit determined by it as per profit and loss account. This sum represented the "advance excise duty paid" and appeared as an asset in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents had not correctly appreciated the accounting procedure being followed by the petitioner. The authority had no reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment. Relying upon the decisions in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170 (Delhi), counsel contended that the court should quash the impugned notices. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by Mr. R. P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the respondents. He placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34. It is, undoubtedly, true that the court has the power to issue an appropriate writ, dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this, we have perused the reasons given by the Assessing Officer. We have also seen the other documents. On an examination of the matter, we find that the requirements of law are fulfilled. Since the matter is still pending before the authority, we shall like to say no more at this stage. In view of the above, we hold that there is no infirmity in the notice given to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that its claim has already been rejected by the second respondent. We cannot accept this contention. As already noticed, it has been specifically stated in the written statement that the competent authority has to consider the objections raised by the petitioner. We have no doubt that the submissions made by the petitioner in reply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
