9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t time) had authorized the petitioner (Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Limited) (DTTDC) to run liquor vends throughout Delhi. The petitioner was required to keep aside a sum of Rs 5/- per bottle for the Transport Infrastructure Utilization Fund (TIUF) which was to be spent towards the activities of construction of flyovers and pedestrian facilities. The said fund was under the direct control of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and utilized for the aforesaid purpose. 4. The fact that the petitioner kept aside a sum of Rs 5/- per bottle for the TIUF was disclosed by the petitioner in its income tax return. In fact, the department had, in respect of earlier assessment years, taken the stand that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 28th March, 2002. 6. By three separate notices, all dated 26th March, 2004, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the „said Act‟), the Assessing Officer proposed to reopen the assessments in respect of the three assessment years in question. The reasons for reopening the assessments were supplied by virtue of the letter dated 28th April, 2004 to the petitioner. The reasons in respect of the three years are virtually identical and we shall refer only to the reasons provided in respect of the assessment year 1997-98. The reasons disclosed are as under:- "Sub-Reasons for reopening of case u/s 147 of the IT Act for AY 1997-98 Please refer to y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flyover & pedestrian facilities etc amounted to an expenditure of capital nature and was not allowable deduction. The findings of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) in all those years. However, the ITAT decided the issue in favour of the assessee company holding that the expenditure actually incurred on the construction of flyovers and pedestrian facilities is revenue expenditure. In all the said years, the department has filed reference/appeal against the decision of the ITAT." 7. The petitioner, thereafter, filed objections in respect of each of the years on 30th April, 2004 and submitted that what the Assessing Officer was proposing to do amounted to a mere change of opinion which was impermissible under Section 147 of the said Act. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act in respect of these two years have been issued beyond the period of four years prescribed in the said provision. That being the case, before the Assessing Officer could acquire jurisdiction for reopening the assessments in respect of these two years, it would have to be shown that the assessee did not file a return or that he did not make a full and true disclosure. It is an admitted position that the assessee had filed a return, therefore, the only question which remains to be open is whether the assessee made a full and true disclosure or not. In the present case there is no allegation in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of the relevant facts. In fact, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
