TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) at an income of Rs.44,13,247/- under normal provisions of the Act and at Rs.10.17 Crores under Section 115JA of the Act. This assessment order was passed on 28.03.2002. 2. Within two years, however, the Assessing Officer (AO) sought to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 18.03.2004. Based thereupon, afresh assessment order was passed on 22.02.2005. The AO added an income of Rs.15,662,632/- on the ground that when the first assessment order was passed while computing the business income, a deduction of Rs.5,67,48,804/- was claimed and the same was allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) quashed the notice issued under Section 148 as well as the second assessment order. We may also state that even on merits, CIT(A) found the addition to be unsustainable, as he was of the opinion that the expenditure was revenue in nature. 5. It was now the turn of the Department to feel aggrieved and the Department accordingly approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by way of filing the appeal and challenging the orders of the CIT (A). The appeal of the Department has, however, been dismissed vide orders dated 31.10.2007. The order of the Tribunal would show that it has extracted the aforesaid portion of the order of the CIT(A) and on that basis, remarked as under: "11. It may be point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Eicher Ltd., 163 Taxman 259 (Del) (supra) (a copy of which has been submitted in the paper book at pages 62 to 65) wherein referring to that decision it was observed by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that in view of earlier Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. ADI (159 Taxman 191) the view expressed in the case of Consolidated Photo And Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) cannot be said to have laid down correct law....." 6. As it is clear that even the verification of the assessment record has revealed that all the facts were placed before the AO at the time of first assessment and the findings of the CIT(A) in this behalf co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey could form valid grounds for reopening of the assessments. In continuation, she argued that even if the additions on account of the aforesaid grounds, were not made by the AO in the second assessment orders passed by it, these grounds would still be relevant for consideration for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. She also submitted that even if one of the grounds for reopening of the assessment is found valid, the notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be set aside. 9. This contention is to be rejected on two grounds. In the first instance, we find that no such plea was taken before the Tribunal. The entire case was argued on the basis that the third reason, viz., treating the entire expenditure as revenue in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir Workmen 73 ITR 53. 2. While calculating effect of newly inserted section 145A, no addition on account of excise duty in valuation of inventory as on 31.03.1998 was done resulting in excess deduction of Rs.3,53,56,437/- claimed by the assessee. No disallowance on above account is being done as the aforementioned amount has not been debited to the audited P&L account in view of accounting policy of the assessee in respect of valuation of inventory and excise and custom duty as stated at Schedule L at page 20 of audited P&L account in view of accounting policy of the assessee in respect of valuation of inventory and excise and custom duty as stated at Schedule L at page 20 of audited P&L account in view of accounting policy of the asses....