9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations. (ii) The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on November 30, 1994. In its return of income, the petitioner-assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3.08 crores under section 80HHC by filing along with its return of income, Form No. 10CCAC prescribed under the rules. The said form showed that the petitioner had exported goods manufactured by it as also goods purchased from others. The petitioner also filed along with its return of income, disclaimer certificates in favour of the supporting manufacturers of the trading goods. (iii) The assessment of the petitioner was taken up for scrutiny and during the scrutiny, respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 1996-97. Being aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, thereafter, to the Tribunal. By order dated December 29, 2000, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated December 29, 2000, the assessee preferred Income-tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 to this court under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The contention of the assessee in the said Income-tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 was that the losses incurred by the assessee in respect of the export of trading goods should be ignored while determining the assessee's entitlement to deduction under section 80HHC(3)(c). The said Income-tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 has been disposed of by this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice dated March 17, 1999, and, therefore, there were no supervening events between the date of completion of the original assessment on March 26, 1997, and March 17, 1999, when the impugned notice was issued by the Assessing Officer. He contended that even after the amendment of the provisions of sections 147 and 148, it is well settled that mere change of opinion cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment. He contended that in the present case, the reasons given for reopening the assessment clearly show mere change of opinion. It was, therefore, contender that the impugned notice was invalid and it was liable to. be set aside. He contended that the subsequent events of this court deciding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c)(iii) in support of his contention that in the present case, the assessee has got the benefit of excessive relief under section 80HHC(l) by reason of the assessee ignoring the losses in computing the net profits under section 80HHC(3)(c). He contended that this case falls under Explanation 2 and, therefore, the judgments cited on behalf of the assessee have no application to the facts of the present case. He also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v. Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 in support of his contention that where the Assessing Officer made the mistake of overlooking something which he ought to have taken into account at the time of the original assessment and if such error has le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 80HHC(1). That, in order to become eligible for deduction under section 80HHC(1), the resultant amount calculated under section 80HHC(3)(c) cannot be a figure of loss. That, an ingenious method for claiming deduction was adopted by the assessee which has gone unnoticed by the Assessing Officer who passed the order of assessment on March 26, 1997, under section 143(3) of the Act. In view of the said reasons, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer-respondent No. 1 herein was right in giving the impugned notice. In the present case, the impugned notice has been given within a period of four years. The present case falls clearly under Explanation 2(c)(iii). Therefore, the present case is one of those cases which the Legislature, by a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said reasons were based on mere change of opinion. It was a case of underassessment. It was not a case falling under Explanation 2. This has been noted even by the aforestated judgment of the Gujarat High Court. In the said judgment, the Gujarat High Court found on the facts that the Assessing Officer, while passing the original order of assessments did not exercise due diligence. The Gujarat High Court further laid down that had it been a case of lack of application of mind or a mistake, the matter would have stood on a different footing. Therefore, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, on the facts, has no application to the present case. The present case is similar to the case reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
