TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no failure on the part of Petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts. During the assessment proceedings, AO had issued notices u/s 142(1) and also issued questionnaires from time to time with respect to Petitioner s claim u/s 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(viii) and Petitioner has answered all those queries. In the assessment order, Petitioner s claim u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1) (viia) and Section 36(1)(viii) has been discussed in detail and certain amount of bad debts had been disallowed. Petitioner had carried that in appeal to CIT(A) and an order giving effect to the order passed by the CIT(A) came to be passed. Therefore, the reasons as recorded for reopening indicate only change of opinion which agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes ( CBDT ) as well as deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Petitioner also submitted a working of the deductions and later revised working of deductions and revised statement were also submitted along with other documents. 4. After considering the submissions made by Petitioner together with the documents submitted, Respondent No. 1 passed an assessment order dated 23rd January 2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act. 5. The claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) has been discussed in paragraph 15 of the said assessment order. Respondent No. 1 has noted that since the claim is linked to the business income, computed under the head Profits and Gains of Business and Profession the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded state that on verification of record, it was observed that in the order dated 29th March 2019 giving effect to the order of the CIT(A): (a) provision for bad debts was allowed in excess at Rs. 564,81,45,059/- instead of Rs. 499,98,11,924/-; (b) deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was allowed in excess at Rs. 760,00,00,000/- instead of Rs. 657,83,50,134/-; Respondent No. 1 relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323., that deduction had to be restricted to the amount claimed in the return; (c) excess deduction had been allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 130,89,42,096/-. Respondent No. 1 concluded, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Petitioner has been assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 13. We have considered the reasons and the entire basis for forming a reason to believe that there has been escapement of income is the effect that the assessing officer gave while giving effect to CIT(A) s order dated 29th March 2019 under Section 250 of the Act. In paragraph 2.1 of the reasons, it states that On verification of records it is observed that the while giving effect to CIT(A) s order u/s. 250 IT Act dated 29/03/2019 revealed that while computing the assessed income .. . In paragraph 2.2, it states that Further, on verification of records it is observed that the whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which again is not permissible in law. This change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargable to tax has escaped assessment. 15. In the circumstances, Rule made absolute. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under: (a) This Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an appropriate direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and after satisfying itself as to the legality thereof, quash and set aside the notice dated 24.03.2021 (Exhibit M ) and the order dated 17.02.2022 (Ex.R) issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the relevant assessment year. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
