TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was allowed the deduction u/s 32AC. The assessee contended that for the purpose of calculation of allowance - it was seen that the addition to fixed assets in Note 11 of the annual account for the relevant period - the allowance of deduction was not in order. During the course of assessment proceedings, Petitioner was told to provide detailed break-up of various plants and machinery installed and commissioned pursuant to Section 32AC duly weighted by its Chartered Accountant. Petitioner provided the details vide letter dated 5th July 2015. Vide letter dated 7th October 2016, Petitioner also forwarded the details, which were called for during the hearing held on 22nd September 2016, of installation date item-wise in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the AO, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that account the AO, who has decided to reopen assessment, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings. Where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it is not open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view. See Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. [ 2021 (10) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Decided in favour of assessee. - K.R. SHRIRAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukhsagar Syal a/w Mr. P. C. Tripathi i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani. For the Respondents-Revenue : Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma. ORAL JUDG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. 5. Petitioner filed its objections and the objections came to be rejected vide an order dated 8th February 2022. In the said order rejecting objections, the stand taken is that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment will not be applicable because it would be applicable only to situation where Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on a particular matter in issue. Since the assessment order dated 17th November 2016 does not discuss the claim of deduction under Section 32AC of the Act, the defence of change of opinion available to Petitioner was not available to Petitioner. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides for income escaping assessment. It states if the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssential limb that the new assets must be purchased as well as installed in the same previous year was not fulfilled, the allowance of deduction was not in order. The figures for FY 2014-15, 2013-14 and 2012-13 were considered. It was seen from the FY 2014-15 that there was addition of only Rs. 24.67 crore during the FY 2014-15. It was also considered that only requirement was purchase and installation and not put to use the assets. However, Installation means to make something ready to use. It seems far-fetched that the machinery worth Rs. 162.90 crore was installed during AY 2014-15 but was not entered in the block next year. No prudent businessman would keep idle any plant and machine after making it ready to use for more than one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equipment details running into about 67 pages. Copies of these documents are also annexed to the Petition. 11. In the order disposing the objections, there is no denial of the fact that these materials were made available or these details were called for during the assessment proceedings. The only explanation is that these have not been discussed in the assessment order. In Aroni Commercials Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Mumbai Anr. 2014 (44) taxmann.com 304 (Bombay)., this Court has held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was the subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi where the Court held that in every case, the Income Tax Officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence of the law which has come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income had escaped assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware. The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the significance of such law. Therefore, the true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax Officer. 7. Moreover, it is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
