9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, the facts in Writ Petition No. 436 of 2001 are reproduced hereinbelow : Facts : (a) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations. The petitioner is an Export House. The petitioner exports self-manufactured goods. The petitioner also buys goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers and it exports the same as trading goods. The petitioner has also issued a disclaimer certificate in favour of the supporting manufacturers. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on December 30, 1992. In its return of income, the petitioner claimed deduction of Rs. 1.46 crores (approx.) under section 80HHC by filing its return of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice. In the computation, the petitioner once again claimed the deduction at Rs. 1.46 crores (approx.) under section 80HHC. (f) Being aggrieved by the notice, the present petition has been filed. Arguments : Mr. Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the original assessment was made on March 31, 1995. It was for the assessment year 1992-93. It was made under section 143(3). He contended that under the proviso to section 147 of the Act, no action can be taken for reopening such assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year 1992-93 on March 31, 1997, unless respondent No. 1 has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in this petition. We are confining this judgment to the facts of the case. In the present case, the period of four years came to an end on March 31, 1997. In the present case, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department. In the present case, it is the case of the Department in the affidavit that the predecessor of respondent No. 1 had passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) on March 31, 1995, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2.86 crores (approx.). That, subsequently, another predecessor in office of respondent No. 1 formed an opinion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessments. This was on March 16, 1999. We have gone through the reasons. The position of law after April 1, 1989, is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
