9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1 . The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment and making addition in respect of issue for which all particulars have already been filed along with the return while completing the assessment u/s 143(3). 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2006 after considering all the particulars filed before him. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2009 and which was sent to assessee by post on 04.02.2009 is beyond 4 year from the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the reopening of the assessment. 5. We find that the reasons recorded under section 148 reads as under: Reasons for reopening of assessment for AY 2004-05: The assessee s return for the AY 2004-05 was assessed u/s 143(2) on 08.12.2006 by Addl. CIT, Range III, Chennai. The firm is in garments business and it s total sale is export sale and claimed deduction u/s 80HHC ₹ 71,64,030/-. In the year assessee earned income by way of quota sale ₹ 19,35,093/- and included that amount in the export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC. In the assessment order, the AO observed that the quota sale should be considered as local sale, and therefore, he p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we find that the Assessing Officer has simply recorded that there was some calculation mistake in the original order of the assessment and thereby excess deduction under section 80HHC was allowed to the assessee. However, it is not clear from the recorded reasons that what was the calculation mistake and how excessive deduction under section 80HHC was allowed to the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer recorded that the ld. CIT(A) directed to allow deduction under section 80HHC at ₹ 71,64,030/- by considering different aspect, but not reasons recorded in the assessment order. From this recording, it is not clear as to which aspects were considered by the ld. CIT(A) for allowing deduction under section 80HHC to the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
