9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer on 21st March 2013, which read as follow:- "The assessee firm filed its return of income for A.Y 2006-07 on 20th October 2006 declaring total income at Rs. 5,35,64,540/= which was scrutinized under Section 143 (3) on 30th December 2008 determining total income at Rs. 6,02,99,730/=. On verification of case record, it is found that the assessee had availed foreign currency loan from the following banks under Post Shipment Credit/Packing Credit [Schedule B - Scheduled loans] : State Bank of Saurashtra, ABN Amro Bank, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, State Bank of India, Corporation Bank and Andhra Bank. As per section 29 of the I.T Act, 1961, for the purpose of computation of the profit and gains of the business, the income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 30 to Section 43D of the Act. Deduction is not admissible on expenditure of capital nature for arriving at the profit and gain of the business. Perusal of Balance sheet revealed that following amount was shown as provision under Schedule E : Current liabilities and provisions being exchange difference debited to profit and loss account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 23-03-2013 issued by the respondent for the assessment year 2006-07; (b)A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent herein dated 29th January 2014 rejecting the objections to assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 for the assessment year 2006-07; (c) A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from proceeding with re-assessment for the assessment year 2006-07; (d) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the respondent may be restrained from proceeding further with re-assessment for A.Y 2006-07 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 23rd March 2013; (e) Provide for cost of this petition; (f) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem to be fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner." 6. On issuance of notice, Revenue appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that the assessee had not furnished details during the assessment proceedings to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had chosen not to add the said amount to his total income, and therefore, as reflected in the reasons recorded, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He further contended that the approval has been obtained prior to issuance of the notice from the Commissioner which is in accordance with the requirement provided under Section 151 of the Act. He has also amplified this aspect by stating that this being re-opening beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, seeking approval of the Commissioner is a due compliance of the provision. 9. On thus hearing both the sides and on detailed examination of the material on record, we need to, at the outset, record the fact that the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act is admittedly in a case, which had been duly scrutinized and also at the end of four years from the relevant assessment year. 10. As provided under the law, the essential requirement for such reopening on completion of four years period from the end of the relevant assessment year in scrutiny assessment would be that the assessee fails to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the details are already part of the record. Thus, there does not appear to be any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts relevant for the assessment. 14. Very vital aspect having a direct bearing on the subject as we could notice is that for the earlier Assessment Year 2005-06, the very issue had been the basis for reopening the process of assessment. This action of earlier year was challenged as well by the petitioner where the re-assessment was made beyond the period of four years by way of Special Civil Application No. 17401 of 2011. This Court vide its Order dated 9th August 2012 has held that such notice of reopening was untenable in as much as the required revelation for exchange difference on PSCFC and PCFC loans were already mentioned in the balance-sheet of the petitioner. It was also held and observed that the specific query was raised with regard to these items, which were duly replied to alongwith necessary evidence by the assessee, and therefore, the Court was of the opinion that initiation of such proceedings of reassessment was only a change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer. 15. We notice that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
