9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that taxing the provision written back in the year under reference would amount to double taxation without appreciation the fact that the addition made on this account in the year of making the provision has already been cancelled by the ITAT. The ld. CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that deleting the addition in this year, the income has neither been taxed in this year nor in the earlier year. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the original assessment, the AO examined the issue and noticed that the assessee has claimed ₹ 3,17,17,376/- as provision for trade guarantees under the head operating administrative expenses . The AO examined the issue detail at page vide para 5. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plain the following:- Guarantees made in those years, which is evident from the assessment orders of those years, copies of which are enclosed herewith for your ready reference and record. In view of that, it would have been clear to you that the provision for trade guarantees written back in the year under reference, and reduced from the total income by the then Assessing Officer was already taxed in the earlier years by way of disallowance in the year of making the provisions and therefore, the same has rightly been excluded from the total assessed income for the year under reference, as the same would have otherwise amounted to double taxation of the same amount. 4. The AO noticed that the disallowance made of write back off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is account where provision made during the year was disallowed and actual expenditure during the year on trade guarantees was allowed. Also the provision of earlier year written back in current year was reduced from the income because it was already taxed in the earlier year. Hence I do not f ind any f law in the original order passed u/s 143(3) and there existed absolutely no reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment on account of any omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts within the meaning of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Hence AO s action in reopening of the assessment u/s 147 is not justified. Accordingly, I cancel the reassessment proceedings and annul the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
