TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the agreements were required. It is thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143 (3) on 19.12.2011. Before the assessment order was passed, a personal hearing was also held on 04.08.2011. Though the assessment order has been passed by the predecessor of the respondent, it does not reveal any proper reasonings. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for completing assessment for the assessment year 2009-2010. Therefore, the impugned exercise of the respondent invoking section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of first proviso to section 147 has to be held on account of change of opinion by the respondent. Thus the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So purchase of movie right is different issue and needs to be capitalised and 25% of depreciation only can be claimed. The assessee is selling only satellite rights retaining theatre rights. The purchase of movie rights for ₹ 15,68,00,000/- is a capital expenditure and is to be shown in Balance Sheet as Assets for which only depreciation @ 25% can be claimed. Whereas, the assessee has claimed the entire amount of ₹ 15,68,00,000/- as expenses and debited in the profit loss a/c. The closing stock of ₹ 1,02,26,000/- shown after selling of all movies and satellite rights. Since the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year and the same is to be investigated and brought to tax. 4. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 237 ITR 668 9. CIT Vs Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 10. CIT Vs Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. , 3113 ITR 231 11. Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd., Vs ACIT , 307 ITR 115 12. Techspan India P. Ltd., Vs ITO , 283 ITR 212 13. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Vs ITO , 41 ITR 191 14. G.K.N.Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO , 259 ITR 19 15. Garden Finance Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , 268 ITR 48. 6. On the other hand, defending the impugned order, the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue/Income Tax Department submits that the petitioner has not truly and fully disclose all materials that were required for assessment by the Assessing Officer. She submits that as against Col.No.8(a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner had sold rights in various films in favour of 15 different buyers for a cumulative value of ₹ 1,15,18,360/-. By another communication dated 17.12.2011, which is 2 days preceding to the original order of assessment, the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner has given a break up of the amounts received from various persons to whom rights were sold. 10. The Assessment Order that has been passed based on the above communication is bereft of the details. It reads as under:- The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on 29.09.2009 admitting a total income of ₹ 60,12,850/- . The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. In the said communication, the auditor has also called upon the respondent to inform as to which of the transactions and which of the agreements were required. It is thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143 (3) on 19.12.2011. 14. Before the assessment order was passed, a personal hearing was also held on 04.08.2011. Though the assessment order has been passed by the predecessor of the respondent, it does not reveal any proper reasonings. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for completing assessment for the assessment year 2009-2010. 15. Therefore, the impugned exercise of the respondent invoking section 148 of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
