9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Development Authority (PUDA) - HELD THAT:- The reasons made available itself shows that it was a clear case of change of opinion. On the first item, i.e., expenses towards designing fees, which was capitalized, the A.O. states the said contention was accepted and expenses was allowed by the department . In Paragraph No. 2.3 it is stated such expenses was not to be allowed as revenue expense and should have been capitalized and required to be disallowed and added back . Therefore, it is a clear case of change of opinion. For amount paid towards concession fee to PUDA it is stated that it is arising out of the contractual obligation between assessee company and PUDA, the same had been claimed as deduction while computing income. The said ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 and the assessment was finalized on 13th December 2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assessing petitioner's income at Rs. 40,84,75,860/-. 4. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 30th March 2021 under Section 148 of the Act which petitioner says they never received. Mr. Sharma states it was delivered to petitioner. The reason to believe escapement of income from assessment was made available to petitioner alongwith the approval under Section 151 of the Act. Paragraph Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 of the reasons to believe read as under : 2.1 The assessee had filed the return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness, is allowable as deduction in computation of income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of Business or Profession. Omission to disallow expenses of Rs. 99,83,000/- has resulted in under assessment of income of Rs. 99,83,000/-. 5. From the reasons recorded it appears that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) had reason to believe escapement of income under two heads, i.e., expenses of Rs. 99,83,000/- towards designing fees which was capitalized and a sum of Rs. 4,98,00,000/- that assessee paid towards concession fee to Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA). 6. Mr. Sharma submitted that the Assessment Order dated 13th December 2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act there is no discussion regarding these two items and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es "the said contention was accepted and expenses was allowed by the department". In Paragraph No. 2.3 it is stated "such expenses was not to be allowed as revenue expense and should have been capitalized and required to be disallowed and added back". Therefore, it is a clear case of change of opinion. 9. So also for the amount of Rs. 4,98,00,000/- paid towards concession fee to PUDA, in Paragraph No.3 it is stated that it is arising out of the contractual obligation between assessee company and PUDA, the same had been claimed as deduction while computing income. The said deduction was accepted and deduction was allowed to assessee. In Paragraph No. 3.1 it is stated that "…….. such expense was also required to be capitalized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aroni Commercials Limited (supra) reads as under : 14. We find that during the assessment proceedings the petitioner had by a letter dated 9 July 2010 pointed out that they were engaged in the business of financing trading and investment in shares and securities. Further, by a letter dated 8 September 2010 during the course of assessment proceedings on a specific query made by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has disclosed in detail as to why its profit on sale of investments should not be taxed as business profits but charged to tax under the head capital gain. In support of its contention the petitioner had also relied upon CBDT Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15 June 2007. (The reasons for reopening furnished by the Assessing Officer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order is to be drafted is the sole domain of the Assessing Officer and it is not open to an assessee to insist that the assessment order must record all the questions raised and the satisfaction in respect thereof of the Assessing Officer. The only requirement is that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
