9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 25th February, 2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act records that ₹ 339.96 crores is not been routed through the profit and loss account and yet disallowed only a part of the claim to the extent of ₹ 242 crores. Thus, it is self-evident from the order of the assessment dated 25th February, 2005 that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind over the issue which forms the basis of the reopening notice dated 26th March, 2007. It is settled position in law that the the reopening notice based on mere change of opinion is not sustainable as held by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator India [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No substantial question of law - Income Tax Appeal No. 1113 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/on account of issue expenses on rupee loan / debenture/ fixed deposits and foreign currency loan and balance amount of ₹ 97,74,41,925/remained to be disallowed. As this expenditure was not routed through the P L A/c, the same was not subjected to scrutiny of the statutory auditors of the assessee company nor the relevant evidences for allowability of the same were submitted before the Assessing Officer for proper verification 4. The respondent in response to the reopening notice pointed out that there is no reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, as the notice is based on mere change of opinion. It was pointed out that the reasons recorded in reopening notice were the very issues which wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This basis is incorrect as the assessment order dated 25th February, 2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act, in fact, at paragraph no.7 examines the entire claim of ₹ 339.96 crores, which includes ₹ 97.74 crores. In fact, the impugned order records the fact that the order dated 25th February, 2005 under Section 143(3) of the Act records that ₹ 339.96 crores is not been routed through the profit and loss account and yet disallowed only a part of the claim to the extent of ₹ 242 crores. Thus, it is self-evident from the order of the assessment dated 25th February, 2005 that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind over the issue which forms the basis of the reopening notice dated 26th March, 2007. It is settled po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
