9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a suppression in so far as the assessee having filed return, presumably, only after closure of the previous year, which is long after the date prescribed in sub-section (3) for bringing the amounts into the Country. Re-assessment proposed, within the six year period is perfectly in order, if the said amounts have not already been disallowed in the original assessment order itself. We hence direct that in the re-assessment proceedings, the specific contention raised by the assessee as to the deduction to the extent of US$ 1,23,691/- having already been carried out in the original assessment order is to be verified. The re-assessment having been initiated on the specific ground, it should be confined to that ground alone. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was proposed without any reasons shown. The appellant then filed Ext.P7 requesting for the reasons for re-assessment for the proposal, which is a mandate as per GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, (2003) 259 ITR 19 . The reasons were hence communicated as per Ext.P8, which indicated that the deduction granted under Section 10B amounting to US$ 1,23,691/- (Rs.49,08,058.85/-) for the assessment year 2005-06 is proposed to be disallowed for the reason of non-compliance with Section 10B(3). 3. The appellant filed objection as seen from Ext.P9, which was rejected and Ext.P12 order was passed. Ext.P12 order was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the ground that there is only a mere change of opinion, which does not permit initiatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 15,41,91,530/- under Section 10B. The appeal memorandum as seen from Ext.P3 also, in paragraph 7 indicates the assessee having challenged the said dis-allowance. In reply to the notice issued by the Income Tax Department and the subsequent communication of ground for re-assessment as seen from Ext.P10, the assessee has filed an objection at Ext.P11. In Ext.P11, the break up of the total amount disallowed has been shown. The claim made as against the bill issued in the name of M/s Sobha Rennaisance, totalling US$ 1,23,691/-, as converted to Indian currency at the existing rate of ₹ 43.53 totaling ₹ 53,84,269/-, is seen included in the dis-allowance made. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
