9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Year 1998-99. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2011 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act was beyond 4 years and barred by limitation as per the proviso, as the Assessing Officer had merely changed his opinion? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the material detected in the course of survey dated 09-03-2004 (during AY 2001-02) that the Tumkur unit manufacturing electrical cables had commenced 20 years earlier and it was not a new unit as per section 80IA of the Act, which was confirmed by Mr. Subramanyam, Mr. Venkateshwara Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of Mr.Venkateshwara Rao was recorded on 16.03.2004. Both the aforesaid persons admitted in their statement that the unit at Tumkur was an old unit and claim under Section 80IA of the Act was incorrect. In respect of the Assessment Year 2001-02, the assessee withdrew the claim under Section 80IA of the Act and paid self assessment tax. Thereupon, a notice under Section 148A of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 08.04.2004 which was based on the material detected in the survey conducted in the course of assessment for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The Tumkur unit manufacturing electrical cables was found to be more than 20 years old unit and the same was not a new industrial undertaking as claimed by the assessee. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disallowed. In the result, the appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the revenue by a Bench of this Court by order dated 03.06.2014 passed in ITA No.205/2008. With regard to substantial question of law No.1, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that in the original order of assessment, the eligibility of the assessee for a claim under Section 80IA of the Act was not examined. It is also argued that though the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, in the course of survey under Section 133A of the Act, ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epak Cables (India) Limited, No.N-1, Industrial Estate, Tumkur. It was found that the assessee was wrongly claiming deduction u/s 80-IA to the tune of Rs. 30,13,535/- The same was put forth before the assessee. The assessee accepted the same and has filed the revised return on 22.3.2004 withdrawing the claim of Sec.80-IA. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that by virtue of omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for computation of income in as much as claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax act, 1961. Hence, I have reason to believe that the assessee's income assessable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec.147". 7. However, the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
