9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the court was delivered by J.P. Devadhar J.-In these two writ petitions, the notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act" for short) both dated February 18, 2005 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 are challenged. Even the objections raised by the assessee have been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Since the reasons for reopening the assessment are identical, both the petitions are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we set out the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1999-2000 which read as follows: "M/s. German Remedies Ltd. Assessment year 1999-2000 It is seen from the assessment records that: (1) Expenses on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, directed the petitioner to file objections for reopening the assessment and further directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner filed its objections. However, the objections raised by the petitioner for reopening the assessment have been rejected by the Assessing Officer vide order dated February 18, 2005. Therefore, the petitioner has once again moved this court to challenge the said order. It is a settled position of law that though the power conferred under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for reopening the concluded assessment is very wide, the said power cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily. The expression "reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment have been met or not. The first ground for reopening the assessment is that the assessee had not furnished any evidence to show that the tax was deducted at source before making remittances in foreign currency relating to payment of interest, royalty, consultancy and analytical fees. However, it is brought to our notice that by a letter dated June 22, 1999, the assessee had furnished its annual return of deduction of tax at source during the financial year 1998-99 relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. Receipt of the said letter is not disputed by counsel for the Revenue. Thus, the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the assessee has not furnished TDS particulars is wholly unjustified. The second ground for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275, the reopening the assessment on that ground does not survive. The fourth and the last ground for reopening the assessment is that the processing charges received by the assessee for the job work done for locals were not income derived from industrial activity and, therefore, the processing charges ought to have been excluded while computing deduction under section 80-IA/80-IB of the Act. It is brought to our notice that the very same issue was agitated for the assessment year 1996-97 and the Tribunal by its order dated September 1, 2004, has held that the processing charges received by the assessee are liable to be included f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
