9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment after supplying copies of reasons recorded. It is a curable procedural infirmity and the matter has to go back to the point where the defect occurred so as to cure of such defect, and continue with the proceedings in accordance with law. Therefore order of AO set aside & matter remand back to AO X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as loss on sale of fixed assets. As per Assessing Officer, business income was worked out by the assessee after considering such claim of loss on sale of fixed assets. When put on notice, assessee replied that assets worth Rs.1,05,90,483/- were transferred to one M/s. O S A Shipping P. ltd, assets worth Rs.1,36,817/- were transferred to one M/s.D.B. Madan & Co., and assets worth Rs.45,09,187/- were transferred to certain other parties. However, as per Assessing Officer, no details were submitted by the assessee in this regard. He also noted that M/s.OSA Shipping P Ltd as well as M/s.D B. Madan & Co were related concerns. Further, according to him, persons to whom assets worth Rs.45,09,187/- were transferred, were not known. Thus, he came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee strongly assailing the reopening done for the impugned assessment year, submitted that assessee had in its computation statement clearly shown the claim of loss on sale of assets. Relying on paper book Volume -II at page-7, Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee had separately considered loss on sale of assets based on books and claimed loss for the difference between sale consideration and WDV. Again according to him, depreciation statement for tax purposes appended by the assessee along with return placed at paper book Volume-II page-13 clearly showed that assets worth Rs.1,29,26,480/- were disposed of during the relevant previous Year. Ld. A.R. pointed out that Assessing Officer had during the original assessment proceedings, required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion available in the records relating to impugned Assessment Year, and the reopening was based on his findings for a preceding year. 7. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and heard the rival contentions. Assessee in its return for impugned Assessment Year had worked out the depreciation for tax purposes as under:- Description WDV as on 1.4.00 Addition Deletion Total Depreciation WDV as on 31.3.01 Block A Building 67,335 - - 67,335 67,335 (10%) 60,601.50 Block B Plant & Machinery Franking machine 170 - - 170 42.50(25%) 127.50 Pump set 11,145 - - 11,145 2,786.25(" ) 8,358.75 Others 7,29,899 36,668 3,79,668 ……….. ……….. ……….. 7,41,214 36,668 3,79,668 11,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to the above. You are requested to comply with the requirements of the notice cited above. On your compliance the reasons will be intimated to you." Assessee had as early as 10.08.07 itself requested the Assessing Officer to treat the return already filed by it on 10.08.07 as one filed pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act.. D.R. has not disputed that reasons were never intimated to the assessee, despite the above letter of the Assessing Officer but he had dealt with it only in the assessment order. 8. Nevertheless, there is a piquant situation arising here. In original assessment proceedings, the A.O. had applied a wrong provision of law. Assets disposed off were all business assets on which depreciation were claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee, Assessing Officer was bound to dispose of such objections by passing a speaking order. In the case before the Apex Court, reasons were disclosed by the A.O., but the objections filed by assessee were not disposed of. None the less, it is clear that the A.O. has to provide the assessee with the reason for reopening, if it was sought and dispose of such objections. So, the plea of the assessee was that it was not supplied of reasons for reopening and therefore, it could not object to such reasons, is justified. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.S.Suresh Vs. DCIT in [2005] 279 ITR 61 also has held that reassessment can be made only after considering the objections filed by the assessee challenging the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
