9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.147 was without any jurisdiction and has therefore been rightly interfered by the Appellate Tribunal.
Although for the purpose of claiming deductions, the respondent / assessee should have written off such income under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the respondent / assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer was however, free to examine the issue in the regular assessment. It is, in the course of the regular assessment on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,94,33,892/-, a sum of Rs. 3,50,66,737/- was added from lease income towards lease equalization. 8. On the aforesaid sum, the respondent / assessee was required to pay the following amounts toward tax as detailed below:- Income-tax @ 40% Rs. 1,83,67,696/- ADD Sur-charge @ 7.5% Rs. 13,77,577/- Rs. 1,97,45,273/- LESS TDS credit Rs. 24,46,717/- Rs. 1,72,98,556/- LESS Advance tax paid Rs. 96,75,000/- Tax payable Rs. 76,23,556/- ADD 234-B interest Rs. 54,88,920/- 234-C interest Rs. 1,64,647/- Tax payable Rs. 1,32,77,123/- LESS Demand raised under Section 143(1)(a) dated 01.07.1998 Rs. 35,72,030/- Additional Tax Rs. 97,05,093/- 9. Meanwhile, the assessment was reopened by issuance of a Notice dated 16.03.2004 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which ultimately culminated in a Re-Assessment Order dated 28.03.2005 wherein, the following taxable income of the respondent / assessee was redetermined:- 1. income from the allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and dismissed the appellant's appeal. In other words, the additions made in the assessment order dated 28.03.2005 pursuant to Notice dated 16.03.2004 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the approval of the Commissioner dated 24.08.2004 has been completely reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. 15. The Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent / assessee and dismissed the appeal of the appellant Department on the ground that there was no failure on the part of the respondent / assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for determining the tax in the light of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Finance Company Limited, 286 ITR 674 and that of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Foramer France, 264 ITR 566. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant Income Tax Department has stated that what was added to the income of the respondent / assessee was a sum of Rs. 5,94,33,892/- vide Order dated 14.03.2000 and lease equalization of Rs. 3,50,66,737/- and after deducting / reducing the admitted loss of Rs. 4,85,81,394/-, the taxable income was arrived at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t / assessee has relied on the decisions of the Courts in the following cases:- i. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax V. CEAT Limited, [2023] 146 taxmann.com 108 (SC). ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ECO Media (P) Limited, (2012) 81 CCH 0085 ChenHC. iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. BAER shoes (India) (P) Limited, (2011) 331 ITR 0435. iv. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Indbank Merchant Banking Services Limited in T.C.A.Nos.2097 to 2099 of 2008 dated 30.07.2019. 20. Defending the Impugned Order, the learned counsel for the respondent / assessee submits that there was no failure on the part of the appellant Income Tax Department to disclose any material evidence for completing the assessment either before the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.07.1998 or in the course of Assessment Order dated 14.03.2000 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Appellate Commissioner dated 22.01.1999 in I.T.A.No.171/1998-1999. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent / assessee took us through the return of income filed by the respondent / assessee under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alculation in Section 154 Order dated 08.06.2000:- Heads Amount Total Income Rs.1,28,74,400/- Income-tax thereon @ 40% Rs. 51,49,760/- Add : Surcharge @ 7.5% Rs. 3,86,232/- Rs. 55,35,992/- Less : TDS Credit given Rs. 25,76,787/- Rs. 29,59,205/- Less : Advance-tax paid Rs. 96,75,000/- Refund Rs. 67,15,795/- Less : 234-C Interest (as per 143(1)(a) dated 01.07.1998) NIL Less : Additional Tax levied under Section 143(1)(a) dated 01.07.1998 Rs. 51,56,960/- Refund Rs. 15,58,835/- Add : Interest under Section 244-A @ 1% Rs. 5,92,344/- Total Refund Rs. 21,51,179/- 28. We have heard the learned counsel and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 29. We are of the view that although the petitioner had failed to include a sum of Rs. 5,94,33,892/- in the return that was filed on 25.11.1997, the Assessing Officer had included the same while processing the return on 01.07.1998 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 30. The aforesaid income of Rs. 5,94,33,892/- was obtained by the Assessing Officer while passing the aforesaid order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
