TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,71,21,790. The return was duly processed under section 143(1)(a) on a returned income. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and assessment was ultimately made under section 143(3) on 3-3-1997 determining the total income at Rs. 3,33,94,470. The total income was subsequently reduced to Rs. 1,96,61,037 in pursuance to the ld. CIT(A)'s order passed in an appeal filed against the original assessment order. In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 3,54,97,167 as per certificate given by the Chartered Accountant in Form No. 10CCAC. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction under section 80HHC at the same amount as per certificate attached to the return of income. The deduction under section 80HHC originally allowed of Rs. 3,54,97,167 in the original assessment made under section 143(3) was subsequently increased to Rs. 4,60,93,747 vide Assessing Officer's order under section 154/143(3) dated 19-9-1997 passed in pursuance to assessee's petition dated 11-4-1997 filed under section 154 of the Act requesting the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80HHC on the basis of income assessed by the Assessing Officer in his assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed return of income on 31-12-1998 disclosing the total income at the same figure as originally disclosed. The re-assessment proceedings were ultimately completed on 30-3-2001, wherein the following additions were made:- (i) On account of suppression of production and closing stock Rs. 1,69,02,362; (ii) On account of disclosing lower value then the value disclosed before the Bank Rs. 92,76,827; (iii) On account of disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC Rs. 4,02,37,624. 4. Being aggrieved with the re-assessment order made under section 147, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A), after discussing the matter in detail and by making reference to the decisions of the various Courts, has held that re-opening by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it was based on change of opinion on the same set of facts and law which was in existence at the time of original assessment. The operative part of CIT(A)'s order is as under:- "In view of the above, it is held that: It was in case by mere changes of opinion which is not permitted under para 7.2 of Circular No. 549 issued by CBDT which is binding on Assessing Officer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contended that there was no change of opinion as to the allowability of deduction under section 80HHC, and as such the proceeding initiated under section 147 before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was as per law contained in section 147 of the Act. He further pointed out that the deduction under section 80HHC in the original assessment was allowed in routine manner without examining and verifying the same and without applying the mind by the Assessing Officer as would be evident from the assessment order itself wherein deduction under section 80HHC was allowed merely as per the certificate annexed to the return of income. The various interpretation given by the assessee as to the computation of deduction provided under section 80HHC(3) was not considered or placed before the Assessing Officer nor this was examined or looked into in the course of assessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the question of forming an opinion by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment did or could not arise at all. The deduction under section 80HHC claimed by the assessee was allowed by the Assessing Officer without appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. He further submitted that the validity of initiation of a proceeding or assumption of jurisdiction in the initiation of a proceeding has to be judged on the basis of reasons as recorded on the date of assumption of jurisdiction. He, therefore, contended that subsequent decision dated 2-7-2001 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (No. 1) [2001] 251 ITR 401 holding that the loss in trading activity should not be ignored for the purpose of determining amount of deduction admissible under section 80HHC cannot be a basis to justify the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, which were already initiated on 18-11-1998. He further contended that at the time when the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act, the contention that the loss in trading items in the instant case can be ignored for the purpose of determining deduction under section 80HHC(1) when there were profit from the manufactured items, was supported by the following decisions:- (i) Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Syntex Ltd. [1999] 106 Taxman 32 (Ahd. -Mag.); (ii) A.M. Moosa v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 86 Taxman 161 (Coch. - Mag.); (iii) Avon Cy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 has substituted then section 147 of the Act w.e.f. April 1, 1989. The scope or powers for re-assessment has now been widened and the conditions precedent to be fulfilled under clauses (a) and (b) of old section 147 effective up to 31st March, 1989 are made less strict. It is significant to note that the amended law, after the merger of clauses (a) and (b) of old section 147, does not employ the phraseology: "the Assessing Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe". But the use of the expression: "if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" should be enough to include also cases where "in consequence of information in his possession", he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Such reason need not be in consequence of information received after the original assessment, which was a requirement of the clause (b) of old section 147. Even the use of the wider words "if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe", without the words "in consequence of information in his possession" cannot be construed so widely as to allow an Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on a mere change of opinion. In order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther be established that the escapement of income was by reason of assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. We further see that if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall be empowered to initiate action under section 147 even before or after the expiry of the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year subject to the limitation provided in section 149 of the Act for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Under the amended provisions of section 147 of the Act, the Legislature has specified certain cases, for the purpose of section 147, where income chargeable to tax can be said to have escaped assessment, as would appear from Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act, which reads as under:- "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:- (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under section 147 on 18-11-1998 as reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in his order are as under:- "In the return of income assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 3,54,97,167. In the assessment order dated 3rd March, 1997 deduction under section 80HHC has been allowed at Rs. 3,54,97,167 vide under section 154 dated 19th September, 1997 the assessee has been allowed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 4,60,93,747. In the report under section 80HHC(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in Form No. 10CCAC submitted alongwith the return of income, the assessee has shown profit from export of trading goods at nil and profit from export of manufactured goods at Rs. 3,54,97,167. Though the profit from export of trading goods has been shown as nil, there is loss of Rs. 22,08,86,222 and its calculations are as under:- 1. Export turnover in respect of trading goods Rs. 26,97,49,503 2. Direct cost of trading goods exported Rs. 25,47,60,102 3. Indirect cost attributable to trading goods exported Rs. 23,58,75,623 4. Total of (2+ 3) Rs. 48,06,35,725 5. Loss from export trading goods (1 - 4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufactured or processed by him and of trading goods, the individual profit from both the activities of the assessee is to be computed in accordance with the formula applicable to respective activities and clubbed with each other. If this interpretation is applied in this case, it is apparent that the assessee did not make proper calculation of profit export of manufacturing goods and of trading goods and deduction under section 80HHC has not been properly claimed by him. It is further stated that Apex Court has held in the cases of Karam Chand Prem Chand (40 ITR 306) and Har Prasad Co. Pvt. Ltd (99 ITR 118) that from the charging provisions of IT Act, it is discernible that the words 'income' or 'profit gains' should be understood as including losses also so that in one sense, 'profit gains' represent 'plus income' losses represent 'minus income' In other words, loss is negative profit, both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character, both must enter into computation, wherever it become material in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee in the light of this definition of 'profit' explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, individual profit derived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation given by the Chartered Accountant in Form No. 10CCAC submitted alongwith the return of income is as under:- Annexure 'A' annexed to Form No. 10CCAC is re-produced below:- "Details relating to the claim by the Exporter for deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 1. Name of the assessee The Champdany Industries Limited 2. Assessment year 1994-95 3. Total turnover of the business Rs. 1,14,99,20,547 4. Total export turnover Rs. 84,29,06,726 5. Total profits of the business Rs. 2,19,39,082 6. Export turnover in respect of trading goods Rs. 26,97,49,503 7. Direct cost of trading goods exported Rs. 25,47,60,102 8. Indirect cost attributable to trading goods exported Rs. 23,58,75,623 9. Total of 7+ 8 Rs. 49,06,35,725 10. Profit from export of trading goods (6 - 9) Nil 11. Adjusted total turnover (3-6) Rs. 88,01,71,044 12. Adjusted export turnover (4 - 6)Rs. 57,31,57,223 13. Adjusted profits of the business (5-10) Rs. 2,19,39,082 14. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em No. 9) being total of Item Nos. 7 and 8, and thus the resultant figure (6 minus 9) would be of (-) Rs. 22,08,86,222, though in the certificate it has been shown as 'Nil. In this situation, the Assessing Officer has, therefore, stated in the reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings under section 147 that in the report in Form Nos. 10CCAC the assessee has shown profit from export of trading goods at Nil though there is a loss of Rs. 22,08,86,222, and the assessee has not adjusted the said loss of Rs. 22,08,86,222 incurred from the export of trading goods against the profit from export of manufactured goods. We find that there is no explanation or clarification whatsoever given in the said certificate as to why the figure "Nil" has been taken against Item No. 10 though as per calculation the figure against Item No. 10 would prima facie (-) Rs. 22,08,86,222. Also against Item No. 18 under the head 'remarks, if any', no explanation has been given as to why the amount of 'Nil has been taken against Item No. 10, though as per calculation the figure comes to (-) Rs. 22,08,86,222 as calculated above. Had the assessee been disclosed or shown the loss of Rs. 22,08,86,222 being negat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading Goods.- Export Turnover of Trading goods - Direct Cost of Trading Goods - Indirect Cost of Trading Goods (a) Export Turnover of Trading Goods Rs. 26,97,49,503 (b) Direct Cost of Trading Goods Rs. 25,47,60,102 (c) Indirect Cost of Trading Goods - All cost (other than Direct Cost) x Export Turnover of Trading Goods --------------------------------- Total Turnover Total Expenditure as per Profit Loss A/c Rs. 1,28,30,35,261 Deduct Depreciation (-)Rs. 2,27,56,251 --------------------- Rs. 1,26,02,79,102 Deduct Direct Cost of Trading Goods (-) Rs.25,47,60,102 ---------------------- Rs. 1,00,55,18,908 Indirect Cost of Trading Goods = 100,55,18,908 X 26,97,49,503 ---------------------------- 114,99,20,547 = 23,58,75,623 = 26,97,49,503 - (25,47,60,102 - 23,58,75,623) = 26,97,49,503 - 49,06,35,725 = Nil". Under the head "Adjusted profit of business" the calculation is consequently shown by the assessee as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken, and consequently as to how the amount of Rs. 3,54,97,167 was calculated against Item Nos. 14 and 16 of the said Annexure. A perusal of the assessment order originally made under section 143(3) clearly indicates that (i) this particular aspect of the matter had not brought or came to the attention of the Assessing Officer when he was finalizing the assessment, (ii) he has not applied his mind as to the plea that loss in trading goods could justifiably be ignored in computing deduction admissible under section 80HHC, and (iii) no such contention supported by alleged decisions of Tribunals that ignoring the loss in trading goods while computing deduction under section 80HHC was justified were ever raised or explained by the assessee at the original stage. The assessment order or material available on record do not indicate that the attention of the Assessing Officer was focused to this very issue of ignoring the loss in trading goods while computing the deduction admissible under section 80HHC and that despite this attention having been focused the Assessing Officer has upheld and accepted the contention of the assessee that the loss in trading goods could be ignored while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision on the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee - Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 9562 (SC); Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC); ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). (iii) The material should not only be full, but also be true K.P Arthanariswamy Chettiar v. ITO [1972] 84 ITR 51 (Mad.); Sujir Ganesh Nayak Co. v. ITO [1974] 97 ITR 372 (Ken). (iv) After the insertion of Explanation to section 147 the position remains that so far as primary facts are concerned, it is assessee's duty to disclose all of them, including particular entries in account books, particular portions of document as well as documents and other evidences which could have been discovered by the assessing authority from the documents and other evidence disclosed. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of fact can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the assessee knows all the material and relevant facts the assessing authority might not. In respect of the failure to disclose, the omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent. That was immaterial. But if there is omission to disclose material facts, then, subject to the other conditions, jurisdiction to reopen is attracted. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.'s case, it had been held that if there are some primary facts from which a reasonable belief could be formed that there was some non-disclosure or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It was held that there was non-disclosure of primary facts which had caused escapement of income. (vi) Mere fact that ITO could have found out factual affairs is no reason for exonerating assessee from making full and true disclosure - The assessee cannot be exonerated from the duty to make a full and true disclosure of material facts merely because the ITO could have in the original assessment proceedings found out correct factual affairs by probing into the material or evidence placed before him but he failed to do so - Ram Prasad v. ITO [1995] 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te belief. It would be immaterial whether the Income-tax Officer, at the time of making the original assessment, could or could not have found by further enquiry or investigation, whether the transaction was genuine or not if, on the basis of subsequent information, the Income-tax Officer arrives at a conclusion, after satisfying the twin conditions prescribed in section 147(a) of the Act, that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of the material facts at the time of original assessment and, therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment... One of the purposes of section 147 appears to us to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a fake or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would be a travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." (ix) Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. and in the case of Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Citi Bank N.A. has held that- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogy Laboratory v. P.N. Prasad [2001] 252 ITR 673, has held that mere production of the balance-sheet, P L A/c or account books will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso to section 147; in that case, the facts showed that the Assessing Officer overlooked the unpaid amount of purchases; That, Assessing Officer noticed the same subsequently; That, at the time of passing the original order of assessment, he could not be said to have opined on the above item of unpaid purchases; Therefore, there was no change of opinion. Therefore, the impugned notice under section 148 was sustained as the Department was justified in issuing notice under section 148 on ground of underassessment within the meaning of section 147. (xiii) In the light of the facts that assessee having put forth its claim for deduction under section 80HH in entirety supporting the same on the basis of Circular No. 484, dated 1st May, 1987 which formed part of written submissions made before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and Assessing Officer having taken note of such written submissions in his assessment order, the Assessing Officer could not assume j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings were therefore started for the assessment years 1973-74, 1980-81 and 1981-82. On writ petitions to quash the notices of reassessment: Held , dismissing the petitions, that the auditors' report was more than sufficient to form a prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. It had been admitted that income accrued in a particular year was not shown either in the balance-sheet or in the returns for that particular year as the forfeiture was delayed by the petitioner. It was not the case of the petitioner that either at the time of furnishing the returns or in the balance sheet submitted alongwith the returns or while supplying information and producing books of account at the time of assessments, the petitioner had disclosed to the Assessing Officer that any income arising out of forfeiture accrued in the assessment year and was for commercial wisdom taken over to the next year. Hence, there was failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment during the relevant assessment years. The notices of reassessment were valid." 15. We are in full agreement with the contention advanced by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant in Form No. 10CCAC. It is, therefore, not a case of mere change of opinion, but it is a case where all material facts or particulars were not fully and truly furnished by the assessee in the course of original assessment proceedings with regard to the claim under section 80HHC and consequently the assessee's claim was allowed without examining and deliberating upon all the material and complete facts necessary for that purpose. It is not a case of reviewing one's own order on same facts. It is also not the case where the Assessing Officer can be said to have drawn a wrong conclusion based on all the material facts fully and truly disclosed by the assessee at the original stage and has now changed his opinion on same set of facts disclosed fully and truly by the assessee at the original stage, which were necessary for assessment. 16. On reading the true intent and meaning of the reasons as a whole given by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer has pointed out the factual as well as legal omission on the part of the assessee in making the claim of deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year. The Hon'ble High Court found the case as the case of income escaping assessment on account of excessive relief allowed. The notice issued under section 148 was held as valid. The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted as under.- " Findings .- We find merit in the case of the Department. The impugned notice has been issued within four years. In the present case, it is the case of the department that the assessee has obtained excessive relief in the order dated March 26, 1997; that the assessee was not entitled to ignore the losses in computing the net profits under section 80HHC(3)(c); that by virtue of ignoring the losses, the assessee as well as the supporting manufacturer claimed benefits despite 100 per cent export turnover being disclaimed. In the reasons given at exhibit K to the affidavit-in-reply, the officer has clearly stated that as per the provisions of section 80HHC(3)(c), profit from exports was required to be calculated in a composite manner. That in the present case, on aggregation, there was loss of Rs. 3.55 crores from the export of trading goods and the resultant amount was a net loss and since the resultant amount was a loss, the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of under assessment. It was not a case falling under Explanation 2. This has been noted even by the aforestated judgment of the Gujarat High Court. In the said judgment, the Gujarat High Court found on the facts that the Assessing Officer, while passing the original order of assessment, did not exercise due diligence. The Gujarat High Court further laid down that had it been a case of lack of application of mind or a mistake, the matter would have stood on a different footing. Therefore, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, on the facts, has no application to the present case. The present case is similar to the case reported in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832. In that matter, it has been laid down that where the Assessing Officer has overlooked something at the time of the original assessment, which he ought to have looked into and which has resulted in the income escaping assessment, then reassessment within four years was permissible. The ratio of the said judgment applies to the facts of the present case. The present case is not based on change of opinion. It is based on the Assessing Officer overlooking the meaning of the word "Profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation of deduction under section 80HHC in the manner as done by the assessee as per certificate could never have been accepted by any Officer without deliberating or examining the same and commenting upon the same in the assessment order. Thus, it is a case where no conscious opinion could be said to have ever been formed by the Assessing Officer on the question of allowability of deduction under section 80HHC claimed by the assessee. 20. Further, a similar issue had come for consideration before the ITAT, 'C Bench, Kolkata in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Delta Industries Ltd. vide [IT Appeal No. 678 (Kol.) of 2003, dated 20-2-2004], where the proceedings initiated under section 148 for the reason that excessive deduction under section 80HHC was allowed in the original assessment order completed under section 143(3) was held valid by giving the following reasons:- "7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before us. There are certain undisputed facts of the case. One, the impugned notice under section 147/148 was issued well within four years from the end of the assessment year in question and hence the case of the assessee would fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difficult for us to support the decision of the CIT(A) that it was a case of change of opinion as such change of opinion is possible only where the Assessing Officer, while completing the original assessment, had formed a conscious opinion about the admissibility of the claim. In the present case before us, the Assessing Officer simply overlooked the matter without expressing any definite opinion about the admissibility or inadmissibility of the claim under section 80HHC. To our mind, it cannot be said in the present case that the impugned notice was issued as a result of the change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. 10. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not refer to any audit report. However, the ld. CIT(A) has observed in paragraph 9 of his order that an audit objection was received from the Revenue Audit on 5-10-1999 in which the Audit Party had opined that the Assessing Officer had given irregular deduction under section 80HHC. He has also reproduced the said audit objection in his order. Perusal of the said audit observation shows that the audit party has not interpreted any law or provision of the Income-tax Act. It has simply invited the attention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 80HHC provided for. Thus the Assessing Officer has simply sought to re-calculate the relief under section 80HHC and not taxability of any income by interpreting any law or provision. This is again a material difference between the case before us and the one before the Hon'ble High Court. Thirdly, the Audit had interpreted the law and given a legal opinion in the case before the Hon'ble High Court whereas in the case before us, the Audit has neither interpreted any provisions of law nor given any legal opinion nor has the assessee raised any such contention before us. The Audit has simply pointed out Calculation errors in the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC which was overlooked by the Assessing Officer at the original assessment stage as the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to examine the claim of the assessee for deduction with reference to the statutory provisions of section 80HHC and this is how he granted excessive relief. Please see Explanation 2(c)(iii) to section 147. The assessment in the case before the Hon'ble High Court was re-opened on the basis of audit report whereas the Assessing Officer, in the case before us, has not made any referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted upon the same mechanically while initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In the case of CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there can be no dispute that the audit party entitled to point out the factual error or omission in the assessment and the re-opening of a case on a basis of factual error pointed out by the Audit Party was permissible under the law. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the assessee that the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer were in any way irrelevant or not germane to the formation of his belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or that the factual error pointed out by the Assessing Officer was incorrect or that the assessment has been re-opened on the basis of interpretation of law given by the Audit Party. In this view of the matter, we are, therefore, unable to support the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this point also. 23. Further, the Assessing Officer's subsequent order under section 154 made on 11-6-1999/24-6-1999 and consequent appellate orders thereupon does not invalidate the Assessing Officer's action already taken by him under section 147 on 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of computing the deduction under section 80HHC were never placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or were never considered by the Assessing Officer in the course of original proceedings. (vi) It is the case where the assessee had not disclosed complete facts truly which could enable him to claim the deduction under section 80HHC to that extent of amount as claimed in the certificate enclosed with the return of income. (vii) On the facts of the present case as discussed above, the Assessing Officer could not be said to have opined on the issue as to whether any loss in trading goods is to be ignored or not while computing the amount of deduction in the manner as laid down under section 80HHC(3)(c) of the Act. (viii) It is also not the case where after examining and perusing all necessary material facts the Assessing Officer had considered or examined the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC on merits in the original assessment so that on the basis of which it could be said that the reassessment proceedings are based on a mere change of opinion. (ix) It is also thus clear that there was no conscious consideration of the assessee's claim under section 80H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
