9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95-96 disclosing the total income of Rs. 6.18 lacs. In its Return of Income the petitioner claimed deduction under Section 80M of the Act to the extent of Rs. 20.50 lacs out of Rs. 23.67 lacs received as dividend. This was as dividend paid out by the petitioner was Rs. 20.50 lacs. The deduction as dividend received was capped to the extent of the dividend paid under Section 80M of the Act. 3. On 1 August 1996, the petitioner's premises were subjected to search under Section 132 of the Act. Consequent to the search the petitioner filed Return of Income for the block assessment period commencing from 1 April 1986 to 1 August 1996. 4. On 22 August 1997, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment for block period and held that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had brought evidence on record to indicate that the dividend had been paid by the petitioner before 30 November 1995. In view of the above, addition of Rs. 20.50 lacs made by the Assessing Officer for the block period was deleted. 7. On 26 March 2003, the impugned notice was issued seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 199696. The reasons for reopening the assessment as furnished to the petitioner were as under: M/ S. SHREE KRISHNA SILK INDUSTRIES A.Y. 1995-96 A search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was conducted on M/s. Shree Krishna Silk Industries Ltd. on 01.08.1996. The assessee had filed nil return for the block period in response to notice u/s.158BC. The block assessment in this case was complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a matter to be considered in the regular assessment. Even if the assessee has claimed higher depreciation than what is permissible, the same cannot be said to be undisclosed income for the purpose of the block assessment." which is applicable in the present case of the assessee for 80M disallowance of Rs. 20,50,000/-. Keeping in view the provisions of section 153(3)(ii), Explanation 2, it is proposed to reopen the assessment of the assessee for A. Y. 1995-96 u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 as income of Rs. 20,50,000/- for A.Y. 1995-96 has escaped assessment. In this regard, a letter dated 11.03.03 has been put up requesting CIT(A)III's sanction u/s. 151. CIT(C)-III has accorded his approval for issuance of notice u/s. 148 vide lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raj.). 5. Bhagwat Prasad Kedia v/s. CIT (248 ITR 562) (Cal.). 6. CIT v/s. Ravi Kant Jain (250 ITR 141)(Del.). 7. Vrsihali Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ACIT (66 TTJ 693) (ITAT, Pune). 8. Ravi Prakash Agarwal v/s. ACIT (67 TTJ 234) (ITAT, Delhi). The Hon. ITAT has also given a clear cut finding that: "the rate at which depreciation is permissible on a particular asset is a matter to be considered in the regular assessment. Even if the assessee has claimed higher depreciation than what is permissible, the same cannot be said to be undisclosed income for the purpose of the block assessment." which is applicable in the present case of the assessee for 80M disallowance of Rs. 20,50,000/. Keeping in view the provisions of section 153(3)(ii), Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for the reason that there is no finding given in the order of the Tribunal dated 25 October 2002 that deduction claimed on account of dividend of Rs. 20.50 lacs is not available under Section 80M of the Act. Further, it is submitted that the assessment order passed on 3 March 1998 in regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act had allowed the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80M of the Act to the extent of Rs. 20.50 lacs and the same was accepted by the Tribunal. Consequently the present impugned notice is mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no allegation of any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the order dated 25 October 2002 which could justify the issuing impugned notice beyond the period of six years. The Supreme Court in ITO vs. Murlidhar B. Deo 52 ITR 335 has ruled with regard to the meaning of the word "Finding" as under: "A finding, therefore, can be only that which is necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an assessment of a particular year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner may hold, on the evidence, that the income shown by the assessee is not the income for the relevant year and thereby exclude that income from the assessment of the year appeal. The finding in that context is that income does not belong to the relevant year. He may incidentally find that the income belongs to another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
