9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an income of ₹ 2,02,803/- for a y 2000-01 on 30.11.2000. Its assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 28. 3.2003, determining its total income at ₹ 2,29,63,350/-, after disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80-0. Subsequently, this case was reopened u/s 147 on 15.3.2004 and the assessment u/s 143(3) rws. 147 was completed on 26.3.2004 reassessing its income a t ₹ 33,24,63, 353/-. Later on, the A O found that in ay 2000-01, the assessee company incurred an expenditure of ₹ 1,77,82,679/- to make the Computer Systems Y2K compliant, claimed it as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xi), which was duly allowed in the assessments made on 28.3.2003 on 26.3.2004 also. However, as per the provisions the deduction was allowable in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice u/s 148 for want of jurisdiction, assessment to have been barred by limitation, alleging the assessment proceedings to be bad in law and the assessment order not sustainable. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal. Against that order, the Revenue filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal : 03. The DR supported the assessment order. The AR challenged the assessment on the same grounds taken before the CIT (A) viz validity of the proceedings u/s 147. He has submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is vague relying this Tribunal decision in its own case in ITA No1071/ Bang/2004 for ay 1994-95 dt 04.11.2004, it was not served as per law, proceedings are barred by limitation, change of opinion etc and tabulated the relevant dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore proviso to section 147 is applicable. The time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 got barred by limitation on 31.3.2005, where as the notice was issued on 8.9.2006. It is therefore held that the notice u/s 148 is barred by limitation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kelvinator India Ltd. 264 ITR 566 held that the fact which could have been discovered by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, may not constitute a new information. There cannot be a fresh application of mind on the same set of facts, and such action would be mere change of opinion which cannot confer jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 147 after 1.4.1989. 8.6. It is also clear that the AO failed to dispose of the objection of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
