9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer was illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore, void ab initio. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sec tion 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by limitation. Without prejudice to the above grounds 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the following subsidies receivable by the appellant for the different years as a part of package of incentive under the State's Industrial Policy for the purpose of setting up new industry in the State of Assam would constitute capital receipts in the hands of the appellant and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this is a debatable point as the hon'ble Supreme Court has not discussed the scheme framed by the Government of Assam and unless and until the purpose for which the terms and conditions under which the incentive is granted in the State of Assam is considered, it is not justifiable to apply the said decision in its case. The hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its landmark judgment in both cases of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT v. Rajaram Maize Products [2001] 251 ITR 427 (SC), held that subsidy received by the assessee after commencement of the business is a revenue receipts and as such it is taxable in the hands of the assessee in the year of receipts. In view of the above and keeping in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment in the year. He, dismissed the ground taken by the assessee-company. 4. Before us, the learned authorised representative (AR) submitted that in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer there was no mention of failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly the material facts in the assessment year under consideration, that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer speak of verification of records, that the Assessing Officer had only verified the details supplied by the assessee and had issued the notice unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of the assessee during the year 1996-97 relevant to the assessment year 1997-98." 7. While deciding the appeal, the hon'ble court held as under (page 318 of 352 ITR) : "31. The reasons, so assigned by the Assessing Officer, shows that the information, regarding transport subsidy, was available in the audited accounts and statements furnished by the assessee to the Assessing Officer also with the assessee's return. These details being available before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer cannot say that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make return under section 139 or response to a notice issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or failure to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for his assessment for the given assessment year. 34. Since the present case did not suffer from non-disclosure or omission to disclose 'fully and truly' the facts by the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have been held, and was rightly not held, by the learned Tribunal, to have had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and make assessment as in the present case." 8. Respectfully following the abovementioned order of the hon'ble Gauhati High Court, we decide ground No. 1 of appeal in favour of the assessee. As we have held that there was jurisdictional defect in the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
