Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (5) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. By status, the assessee in this case is limited Co. whose accounts are maintained on mercantile basis and the accounting period was the year ending 31st March, 1978. The assessment in this case was originally framed on 31st March, 1981, under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While processing the case for the asst. yr. 1980-81, it is said to have come to the notice of the Revenue that in the asst. yr. 1978-79, extra shift allowance had been claimed and allowed on certain items which were said to have been specifically excluded by the inscription of 'NESA' from the entitlement of extra shift allowance. The assessee was said to have not furnished the full particulars of its machinery as referred under s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... remaining unconvinced, operated s. 147 of the Act and observed that since the assessee had not filed full particulars of its plant and machinery, extra shift allowance had erroneously been allowed on transformer and generator in Unit No. II that those items of machinery were specifically excluded by insertion of 'NESA' in Appendix I part I of the IT Rules. The assessment was framed on 29th Feb., 1984, after issuing notice under s. 148 of the Act. 3. The action of the IAC(A) was contested by the assessee and Sh. G.K. Sood, the learned Advocate, argued before the learned CIT (A) that the proceedings under s. 147 of the Act could be initiated only where the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd parcel of the main plant and machinery and as such NESA was found allowable thereon. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submissions made before him and also taking into consideration the facts placed on record, cancelled the assessment order with the following observations: "6. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and find that the plea taken before me is quite forceful. The appellant has disclosed the value of the transformer during the asst. yr. 1973-74 at Rs. 58,401. During the asst. yr. 1973-74, the details of plant and machinery and electric installations were furnished separately but the Department chose to club them together for the purpose of allowing depreciation and ESA thereon. Similarly the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... body of the assessment order. The assessment being bad in law is hereby cancelled. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 3A. Therefore, the present appeal before us by the Revenue. 4. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative Sh. D. Chatterjee, besides supporting the assessment order, contended that since the details of the machinery were not given by the assessee, the IAC(A) correctly operated s. 147. It was also pointed out that the presence of such details in the past could not be of any consequence for the year under consideration. According to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, the information gathered by IAC(A) during the asst. yr. 1980-81, constituted a valid reason for operating s. 147. It was contended that ES .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o him, constituted a change of opinion which was said to be not permissible under the law. It was contended that there was no live link existing between the reasons and the reopening. It was the learned advocate's case before us that a wrong finding was correctly vacated and no inference was, therefore, called for. 6. In rejoinder, it was contended by the learned Sr. Departmental Representative that the learned authorised representative of the assessee did not specifically say that the details were furnished for the year under consideration. 7. The contentions raised and submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties have been heard and considered. The history of the depreciation items starts from the asst. yr. 1973-74 and as pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates