TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the assessment year 1992-93. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of hand tools (spanners). The return of income, declaring net income, at Rs. 22,650 for the assessment year 1992-93, was filed by the petitioner after claiming deduction under section 80HHC of the Act at Rs. 64,34,244. Subsequently, a revised return was filed, declaring the same net income but claiming deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 69,35,182. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 54,78,739 in the assessment order dated December 20, 1994. The petitioner filed an application under section 154 of the Act on December 29, 1994, pointing out that deduction under section 80HHC should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deduction under section 80HHC on the ground that the petitioner-firm had wrongly claimed the deduction in the next assessment year (1993-94) and it was necessary to again examine the deduction in respect of the assessment year 1992-93. Shri A. K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the notice sent by the Assessing Officer under section 148 is wholly without jurisdiction because the matter regarding deduction under section 80HHC had already been examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had, therefore, no jurisdiction or authority to by-pass the appellate order by way of reassessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already held that the petitioner was entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spanners. In the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee, has specifically stated that no spanners have ever been manufactured out of EN-8. The actual raw material used is a lower costing material called C-38. In view of this and the fact that the cost price paid by the assessee is much less than that claimed in the IPRS statement furnished to EEPC, the price differential claimed by the assessee for purposes of IPRS in the claim statement to EEPC is not legally admissible to the assessee. The IPRS claimed by misrepresentation of facts to concerned authorities is, therefore, assessable only as income from other sources and the deduction under section 80HHC, which has been allowed to the assessee in respect of this is not admissible as per law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion before the assessing authority and was altogether a new material available now. This new material came to the notice of the Assessing Officer while examining the case of the petitioner for the subsequent assessment year 1993-94. In these circumstances, the notice issued under section 148 of Act cannot be faulted. The petitioner has only been asked to appear before the Assessing Officer and to show cause as to why the assessment be not reopened. It is for the assessee to explain that the material imported, under the incentive scheme, had been duly utilised for the manufacture of the export item and the deduction under section 80HHC, in respect of the incentive amount, had been correctly claimed from the Government. In the result, the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
