TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued. The Assessing Officer passed the order on 24.11.2008 and made certain disallowances. 3. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim of Excise duty amounting to Rs.. 12,96,995/- paid in respect of processing charges received from Steel Authority of India for conversion purposes. 4. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted as follows: Ground No.2 is against disallowance of excise duty claim of ₹ 12,96,995/-. The facts are that while finalizing the accounts of subsequent year i.e. 2005-06 it was noticed by the appellant during the reconciliation of the excise duty account that certain amount of excise duty paid during the F.Y. 2002-03 had not been debited to the expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ltd. (284 ITR 323) has held that a deduction can be claimed if return has been filed only by way of filing of revised return. The AO has no jurisdiction to entertain claim made otherwise. In the case of the appellant the time limit for filing of revised return u/s.139(5) had expired. No revised return has been filed. In the light of the S.C. judgement cited above, the claim of the appellant for expenditure not claimed in the original return can no longer be entertained. Secondly, the provisions of Sec.147 and 148 clearly state that re-assessment proceedings by issue of notice would be taken up if the A.O. has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The A.O. would then assess or reassess such income as also any other inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n not considering the regular accounting system followed by your appellant by not including excise duty in sales? 2C. THAT whether the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law as well as under the circumstance of the case in applying the ratio of judgment decided in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 192 ITR 297 (SC). 2A. THAT without prejudice to any of the prayers mentioned at serial No. 1 2 alternatively conversion charges which is excessively considered to the extent of excise duty included therein be considered after reducing thereform the contents of excise duty, which is not part of the total income and the income of your appellant be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed from the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s.148 that the assessee has claimed an amount of ₹ 12,96,995/- as Excise Duty not claimed in the Profit Loss Account. However, no evidence in support thereof has been filed by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. Without going into the merits of claim, it is pertinent to mention here that this claim of this assessee amounting to ₹ 12,96,995/= as Excise Duty, cannot be entertained at this stage in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (198 ITR 297), wherein it has been held that it may not be open to the Assessee to make a fresh claim, which have never been agitated during the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
