TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that even post the amendments in Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989, the concept of change of opinion, continues to hold the field. In the result, the impugned notice is quashed and set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - WRIT PETITION NO. 14551 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar with Mr. Rohan Deshpande i/b. Alisha Pinto, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondents. P.C: Petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening of assessment dated 5th March, 2018, as at annexure A to the Petition. Petition arises in the following background: (a) Petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she had recorded the following reasons: The assessee has filed return of income for A.Y. 201314 on 30.09.2013 declaring a loss of ₹ 1,05,082/. The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business manufacturing and selling diesel generators, petrol generators, LPGas Natural gas generators. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The income was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at loss of ₹ 5080/28.1.2016. 2. On perusal of the case records it is revealed that the assessee had debited an amount of ₹ 1,89,72,000/toward provision for warranty included in miscellaneous expenses under the head other expenses to the P L account. Further on verification of balance sheet that during the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, reason to believe that there is an escapement of income to the extent of ₹ 1,89,72,000/within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 Upon being supplied the reasons, Petitioner raised objections to the notice of reopening of assessment under a communication dated 12th April, 2018. Such objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer on 27th November,2018. Hence, this Petition. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the Petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, sole issue on the basis of which the notice of reopening is issued, was examined by the Assessing Officer, during scrutiny assessment. After being satisfied with the explanation of the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uphold he Tribunal's decision on the invalidity of the reopening, the other issues on merits need not be gone into. No question of law arises. 5. On the other hand, Shri Walve, learned Counsel for the Revenue opposed the Petition, contending that, the Assessing Officer had recorded proper reasons. The impugned notice has been issued within a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year and, therefore, the element of true and full disclosure would not be relevant. He submitted that the Petitioner itself filed for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, had treated the warranty liability as unascertained liability. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely on the ground that, there had been an error in her considering Assessee's claim. 8. In this context, we may refer to the material on record. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer had placed multiple queries, to which the Petitioner had replied. In one such reply dated 6th January, 2016, Petitioner in the context of claim of warranty liability had made following representation: 5. Note on provision for Warranty Expenses During the year under consideration, company received the bulk order of 1054 generator sets from Educomp Solutions Ltd. The said order was placed on certain terms and conditions as laid down in written agreement between the said company and us. The order was for 1054 generator sets to be installe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
