9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was found that the assessee had not quantified the amount of additional depreciation @ 10% on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding year and had made passing remarks without substantiating its claim. What is evident is that the claim for reopening the assessment has been based on the very annexure of the audit report which was available to the revenue in the exercise that was carried out during the scrutiny assessment. The reason to believe therefore cannot be said to be based on any new of fresh tangible material and cannot therefore be used as a tool to reopen the assessment proceedings. What is also evident from the exercise of the scrutiny assessment carried out in the case of the petitioner is that the assessee has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1 : Mr B S Soparkar (6851) For the Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr Nikunt K Raval (5558) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1. Rule. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 30.03.2018 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short). 3. Facts in brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt proceedings vide letter dated 04.07.2018. Vide letter dated 11.09.2018, the respondent disposed of the objections. The petitioner raised further objections in response to the said order and once again requested the respondent to drop the reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 19.09.2018. 4. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions. 4.1 That there has been no failure to disclose truly and fully all material particulars. Merely because there is reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is not sufficient to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years. The escapement must have been as a result of failure to disclose fully and truly all the material facts. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be substituted by the objections received from the audit department. 5. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that the assessee by claiming excess depreciation had its total income. The assessing office after detailed examination has recorded satisfaction that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 5.1 Mr. Raval, learned counsel would submit that on verification of the Annexure F to the audit report, it was evident that there was no description and the printing suggested that there was no full and true disclosure. On verification of Annexure F, it is found that the assessee has not quantified the additional depreciation @ 10% on the eligible assets purchased in the preceding previous years and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The reason to believe therefore cannot be said to be based on any new of fresh tangible material and cannot therefore be used as a tool to reopen the assessment proceedings. 7. What is also evident from the exercise of the scrutiny assessment carried out in the case of the petitioner is that the assessee has been claiming additional depreciation at the rate of 20% on the eligible plant and machinery by virtue of the provisions of Section 32(1(iia). The assessment has been reopened beyond a period of four years and it is not a case where it can be said that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 7.1 The tax audit report specifically stated that the balance of additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
