9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of income. Even in the reasons recorded, Assessing Officer has stated that “ on verification of the case records, it is noticed that ....” Thus, the material which the Assessing Officer relied in the reasons recorded, emanates from the record itself - no reason to reopen the assessment - in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 17700 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2012 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr Manish J Shah With Mr J.P. Shah, Adv Respondent Rep. by : Mr M.R. Bhat Sr. Adv with Mrs Mauna M Bhat, Adv JUDGEMENT Per : Akil Kureshi, J : 1. Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.9.2002 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excise duty MODVAT credit balance available with excise department amounting to Rs.84,58,249/- was required to be added to total income as other income. By not doing so, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of RS.84,58,249/- has escaped assessment during the year. Notice u/s 148 is therefore issued after obtaining satisfaction of CIT Ahmedabad-II, Ahmedabad. 6. Having received the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, the petitioner raised its detailed objections under communication dated 24.11.2003. In such objections, the petitioner specifically contended that there as no omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The petitioner also cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MODVAT Credit lying with the Department cannot be treated as income of the assessee. 9. Our attention was also drawn to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Assessing Officer as also to the order dated 24.12.2003 by which he rejected the petitioner s objections. On the basis of such documents counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer had not dealt with the petitioner s twin objections that the petitioner had not failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts and further that by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.(supra), in any case, the basis of which the reopening was based, lacked legal validity. 10. Counsel further contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (including Sales Tax and Excise Duty) of Rs.15.46 crores (rounded off). The petitioner had also disclosed at Schedule H that there are certain loans and advances, one of which was of Rs.84.58 lakhs pertaining to balance lying with the Excise Authorities. Such balance, it is a common ground, pertains to MODVAT Credit. Thus the petitioner had made necessary disclosure and had excluded such amount from the computation of income. Even in the reasons recorded, Assessing Officer has stated that on verification of the case records, it is noticed that .... Thus, the material which the Assessing Officer relied in the reasons recorded, emanates from the record itself. On one hand looking to the return filed by the petitioner in which above noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
