Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity of provision for doubtful debts, the assessee has claimed provisions for doubtful debts and the same is disallowed and added back by the assessee itself in computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. At the same time, the same is required to be added in computing total income under the normal provisions of the Act. Having the assessee not done so, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the provisions for doubtful debts and advances which was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation, the assessee has claimed of depreciation of ₹.1,14,96,325/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confirmation of addition made towards provision for doubtful debts as well as confirmation of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the first solitary ground raised by the assessee is with regard to reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We find that the assessee has not challenged the above issue before the ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. Being a legal issue even though raised for the first time before the Tribunal, we have decided to adjudicate the issue on merits by considering the materials available on record and hearing to the ld. DR since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing [RPAD on record]. 3. The ld. DR has submitted that by reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 999-2000 to 2001-02. As per the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Times Guaranty in I.T.A. Nos. 4917 4918/Mum/2008 dated 30.06.2010, the unabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 is not eligible for relief granted by amendment to section 32(2) in assessment year 2002-03. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noticed that an income amounting to ₹.2,03,92,089/- has escaped assessment in the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, by recording the reasons for escapement of income under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening of assessment within the time prescribed in the Income Tax Act. 4.1 In the case of Kalyanji Mavji Co. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts larger Bench in Indian Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) in-as-much as the same also allowed reassessment in case of change of opinion, which, clearly, could not be as the Assessing Officer has no power to review his order. The Apex Court, per its larger bench decision in A.L.A. Firm v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC), again reviewed the matter and clarified that the proposition (2) in Kalyanji Mavji Co s case (supra) was indeed widely expressed, as it would also include cases in which the Income Tax Officer, having considered all the facts and law, arrived at a particular conclusion, yet initiates proceedings on a reappraisal of the same material which had been considered earlier and in light of the same legal asp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e issue of consideration of an aspect of the matter and formation of opinion in its respect, it may be appreciated, is essentially a matter of fact, the law only barring a change of opinion. Where, therefore, there is a live and clear nexus between the said information and the reasons to believe escapement of income, formed on that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess cannot be called into question as was sought to be canvassed before us. Thus, we hold that the entire reassessment in this case is valid and therefore, the reopening of assessment is upheld. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. With regard to the ground relating to allowability of provision for doubtful debts, the assessee has claimed pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates