9911796707
TMI BlogReassessment conducted after 4 years by Income Tax Authorities.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner had earned interest income of ₹ 7, 73, 87,637/- . Out of total interest paid of ₹ 75,79,35,292/- an amount of ₹ 7,66,66,663/- had been claimed as deduction u/s 57 of the IT Act, 1961 and balance amount of ₹ 68,12,68,629/- had been debited to Work In Progress(WIP). As per the assessing officer the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the Act was not correct; the assesse is a builder and had taken above mentioned loan (Rs. 530 crores) for the sole purpose of carrying out construction project at Thane. Hence, the interest paid on the said loan is related to assesses business and accordingly is allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The reasoning being given was that since there was no business income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by the assesse in the course of the assessment proceedings. The Petitioner put forth the case law of CARTINI INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2009 (3) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this Court has observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. Further alleged as a contention by the Petitioner/assesse the principle laid down in Cartini must apply to the facts of a case such as the present. The assesse had during the course of the assessment proceedings made a complete disclosure of mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesse to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary ….." is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The writ petition was allowed and observed by the Hon'ble judge, it cannot be said in the present case that there was an omission or failure on the part of the assesse to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. It cannot be stated that the condition precedent to the reopening of an assessment beyond a period of four years has been fulfilled. The statement in the reasons for reopening "I have reasons to believe that income of ₹ 7, 66, 66,663/- which was chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
