TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are should have been taken before the details are submitted. It may be true that the assessee can now take a stand that substance over form is to be considered but what is important is that the assessee at the first instance had a duty to give proper and correct details. We may say that the assessee failed in doing so. Be that as it may, what is required on the part of the Assessing Officer is not to go mechanically by the details disclosed by the assessee in the statutory form and or for that matter signed and certified by the Chartered Accountant. AO being cast with a statutory duty an enquiry is required to test the correctness of the disclosure made in such statutory forms. This is why the concept of substance over form was always prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.7416 of 2017 dated 04.10.2018. The writ petition was filed by the respondent/assessee challenging the proceedings of the appellant dated 13.02.2017 in and by which the appellant rejected the objections raised by the assessee for reopening of the assessment for the year 2010-2011. 2.The assessee filed their return of income for the relevant year and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) with minor additions on 28.01.2013 accepting the claim of deduction made by the assessee under Section 10B of the Act. Subsequently the appellant issued notice dated 25.01.2017 stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer in the notice dated 25.01.2017, the assessee stated that the substance over Form is required to be taken into consideration and mere reporting of the date in the Form 56G does not give a conclusive picture as to the date of starting of manufacturing activity which is only in the month of April or which only in the assessment year 2001-02 which has been clearly claimed as the first year of exemption. Therefore, the assessee requested to drop all the assessment proceedings and reopen the assessment. Apart from the above stand taken by the assessee, they referred to few decision in support of their contentions. 3.The Assessing Officer vide order dated 13.02.2017 rejected the contention raised by the Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and the representations of the Chartered Accountant received after the said date were not taken into consideration. The assessee moved the Writ Court and filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the impugned order. 4.We have heard Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 5.Before we go into the controversy as to what would be the correct date of commencement of commercial production by the assessee, we need to point out that there has been a discrepancy in the dates mentioned in Form 56G filed by the assessee. There can be no escape from this fact and the assessee should accept this mistake. In fact this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ously contesting the matter at the relevant point of time. Wisdom dawned upon the assessee only after the appellant passed the order dated 13.02.2017. It is thereafter the assessee through their Chartered Accountant gave the exact date of production/manufacture as 25.05.2000. Keeping aside all these issues, we have examined the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Bench and we note with approval the findings of the learned Single Bench in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned order. The above finding rendered by the learned Single Bench is just and proper. As pointed out by the learned Single Bench every non-disclosure of material facts will not or cannot be a justifiable reason for reopening an assessment. We reiterate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
