2009 (11) TMI 395 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment- The assessee had made a belated claim of investment allowance. The reason for disallowance was based on section 32A of the Act. Held that- the claim was prima facie inadmissible because it was obviously beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act. Further, the next item of disallowance was prior expenses and the assessee had not shown in the return and annexures as to the provision under which the claim of deduction was made. The Tribunal was not justified in canceling the proceedings.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of Tribunal in cancelling assessment under section 143(1)(a)
2. Rectification application filed by assessee under section 154
3. Belated claim of investment allowance
4. Disallowance under section 32A(3)(ii) of the Act
5. Prior period expenses and claim of deduction

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around the justification of the Tribunal in cancelling the assessment made under section 143(1)(a). The court examined whether the disallowances made fell within the description of "prima facie inadmissible items." The court found that the assessee had initially filed a rectification application under section 154 against the proceedings under section 143(1)(a), indicating that the assessee believed the additions were mere mistakes. The court held that the assessee could not later argue that these mistakes were debatable issues that could not have been corrected under section 154.

2. Regarding the rectification application filed by the assessee under section 154, the court noted that the assessee had made a belated claim of investment allowance for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 in the return filed for 1994-95. The court highlighted that the reason for disallowance was based on section 32A(3)(ii) of the Act, and the claim was considered prima facie inadmissible due to being beyond the limitation period provided by the Act.

3. The court also addressed the issue of prior period expenses and the claim of deduction by the assessee. It was noted that the assessee had not shown in the return and annexures the provision under which the deduction claim was made. The court concluded that these added items were prima facie not admissible under the Act but were still deducted by the assessee in the computation of taxable income.

4. In the final analysis, the court determined that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the proceedings under section 143, especially since the assessment had been modified through rectification and revision processes. The court allowed the appeal by reversing the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for further consideration on the merits, emphasizing the need to address the issues raised during the assessment process thoroughly.