Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (6) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, the income had escaped assessment. Thus, there is no allegation that there was any default on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts. Admittedly, the AO had raised queries in course of original assessment proceedings which were duly replied by assessee vis a vis the provision of section 115JB and, therefore, this was clearly a case of change of opinion, which is impermissible for initiating proceedings u/s 148. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Sun Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (2) TMI 193 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), wherein under identical facts the reassessments were held to be without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also considered the insertion by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k by the assessee for calculation of its book profit. Accordingly notice dated 4-9-2009 u/s 148 was issued after recording following reasons: The assessee debited a provision for bad and doubtful debts to its P L A/c and the same was added back by the assessee in its computation of income under normal provisions. However, while calculating income u/s 115JB, the above amount i.e. ₹ 14,25,38,173/- was not added back by the assessee for calculation of its book profit. The above amount was required to be added back to income under special provisions since it was for an unascertained liability. The Assessee failed to discharge his duties by not adding back the same into his book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act. Thus the income charg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded back while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Further, this vie was subsequently confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409. The assessee also relied upon following decisions: - E.I. Dupont India Ltd. 169 Taxman 184 (Del.); - JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. Ors. 288 ITR 63 (AT)(Cal.)(SB). 2.3. Thus, in sum and substance the assessee s submission was that since the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts, necessary for assessment, in view of the proviso to section 147, reopening was bad in law. Ld. CIT(A), after elaborate consideration of all the case laws, relied by assessee and after considering the questionnaire dated 3-6-2006, issued by the AO and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... though assessee while computing the income under the normal provisions of the Act, added back the provision for bad and doubtful debts but while computing/ calculating income u/s 115JB did not add back the provisions for bad and doubtful debts and, therefore, the income had escaped assessment. Thus, there is no allegation that there was any default on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts. Admittedly, the AO had raised queries in course of original assessment proceedings which were duly replied by assessee vis a vis the provision of section 115JB and, therefore, this was clearly a case of change of opinion, which is impermissible for initiating proceedings u/s 148. We find that this issue is squarely covered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same was not added back while arriving at book profits; that this being an unascertained liability according to clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB should have been added back while computing book profits under section 115JB - It was found that at time when original assessment was completed, issue as to whether clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB would cover cases of amounts set aside for diminution in value of investment was debatable and it was only after clause (i) to Explanation 1 below section 115JB was inserted by Finance (No 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1-4.-2001 that said controversy was resolved - Whether-since at time of completing original assessment under section 143(3), Assessing Officer had be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates