9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the end of the relevant assessment year, the same would not be permissible. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17010 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2012 - AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. S.N. Soparkar, Mrs. Swati Soparkar, Ms Bhoomi Thakore for the Petitioner. M.R. Bhatt, Mrs. Mauna M Bhatt for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. Rule Learned advocate Mrs. Mauna Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is assessed to tax regularly under the Income Tax Act. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge notice dated 23.3.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking to reopen the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3A. Therefore, the assessment proceeding initiated vide notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 26.07.2005 was revived. Thereafter, assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 30.04.2010 determining the total income at Rs. 15,56,86,104/-. Later on, verification of schedule 21 of profit loss a/c revealed that during the year the assessee had claimed custom duty paid on behalf of the customers of Rs. 1,42,55,270/-. It is seen from the records that custom duty has been paid by the assessee on behalf of its customers. Therefore, the same is not expenses of the assessee and the same was required to be disallowed. However, this has not been considered and discussed in the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 passed u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A and ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eopening of the assessment and submitted that the assessment previously framed after scrutiny could not have been reopened beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year. It was contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Our attention was also drawn to the correspondence entered into between the Assessing Officer and the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings to contend that all aspects were examined by the Assessing Officer threadbare. In the final order of the assessment, no additions on the grounds that Customs Duty allegedly paid on behalf of the customers or the ceasing of liability of sales commission payable were made. 8. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed from the customers. Further, the said duty is payable on Delivery i.e. DDP. Vide Annexure -4 the assessee provides with customs duty ledger along with respective sales invoices." ** ** ** 6. Copy of Accounts of parties to whom sales compensation is paid. Copy of Accounts of Parties to whom sales commission is paid is furnished vide Annexure." It may be noted that after receiving such response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed assessment order, but made no additions either on account of the customs duty paid on behalf of the customers or continuation of the commission liability. 11. From the above clarifications issued by the assessee, it can be easily seen that both the issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
