9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner's case was selected for scrutiny and during the proceedings several information/documents were sought from the petitioner by issuing notice under Section 143(2). The petitioner gave its written submission dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) alongwith relevant extracts of ledger account as well as sample invoices with respect to claim of 'Computer Supplies and related expenses', which formed part of the head 'Other Expenses'. The assessment proceedings were completed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure P-5). 4. After a period of 4 years i.e. on 30.03.2019, the respondents issued notice under Section 148 informing the petitioner that some income had escaped for the assessment and directed it to file a return. The petitioner, thereafter, filed return in response to notice under Section 148 electronically on 26.04.2019 (Annexure P-6). Vide letter dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. Pursuant to the said letter (Annexure P-7), the petitioner filed its objections dated 06.06.2019 as per the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,750/- on account of computer supplies and related expenses under the head "other expenses" in profit and loss account. Assessee had purchased computers and software for Rs. 14,63,750/- upto 30.09.2011 and after allowing depreciation @ 60% (i.e. Rs. 8,78,250/-), the balance amount of Rs. 5,85,500/- needed to be capitalized. Similarly expenditure of Rs. 29,56,000/- was incurred on account of purchase of computers and software from the period 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2012 and after allowing depreciation @ 30% (i.e. Rs. 8,86,800/-), the balance amount of Rs. 20,69,200/- needed to be capitalized. 10. Keeping in view the above facts, the case was re-opened after seeking prior approval from the statutory authority vide letter No. Pr. CIT/GGN/Tech/Proposal 147/2018-19 dated 30.03.2019. The statutory notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2019 was issued and reasons were provided to the assessee. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner had raised following objections/grounds during the proceedings of re-opening under Sections 148/147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 which were decided vide order dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure P-2):- 1. Reopening of the assessment barred by proviso o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was examining a case of assessee who was engaged in the travel business. The assessee had incurred certain expenditure on development of its website. The website was used by the clients for payment of money and hence it was held that the website was for the purpose of availing services provided by the assessee and this expenditure has to be regarded as revenue expenditure. In para No. 5 and 6 of this judgment, it was observed as under:- 5. In Empire Jute Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The Supreme Court observed that in such cases the test of enduring benefit is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given dcase. 6. In Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure of other facts. It was for the assessing officer at this stage to decide what inference should be drawn from the facts of the case. In the present case the assessing officer on the basis of the facts disclosed to him did not doubt the genuineness of the transaction set up by the assessee. This the assessing officer could have done even at that stage on the basis of the facts which he already knew. The other facts relied upon by the revenue are the proceedings before the DRP and facts subsequent to the assessment order, and we have already dealt with the same while deciding Issue No.1. However, that cannot lead to the conclusion that there is non-disclosure of true and material facts by the assessee. It is interesting to note that whereas before this Court the revenue is strenuously urging that the assessee is guilty of non-disclosure of material facts, before the High Court the case of the revenue was just opposite. We may quote a portion of the counter-affidavit filed by the revenue in response to the writ petition filed by the assessee before the High Court which reads as follows:- "...It is evident from these facts that second proviso to section 147 is clearly attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
