TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). 2. By virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the notice dated 30.03.2010 issued under section 148 of the said Act and also the quashing of all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto including the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Assessing Officer whereby he rejected the objections to the re-opening of the assessment filed on behalf of the petitioner/assessee. 3. The original assessment under section 143 (3) was completed on 17.07.2006. The notice under section 148 of the said Act was issued by the Assessing officer on 30.03.2010 and the reasons thereof are also dated 30.03.2010. The reasons were communica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h were the sum total of expenses incurred towards earning the exempt dividend income of Rs. 195,19,82,701/-. And, the assessee itself had excluded these expenses from the claimed expenditure. 5. Consequently, it was submitted by Mr Vohra that first of all there was a full and true disclosure of the expenses incurred towards earning dividend income which was exempted in the year in question and that there was no other expenditure incurred in respect of earning that income. He submitted that this being the position, the bar of four years clearly applied and since the notice under section 148 of the said Act was admittedly issued on 30.03.2010 i.e., beyond the four years from the end of the assessment year in question, there would be n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they could not be the ground for re-opening of the assessment in view of this court's decision in the case of CIT v. SIL Investments Ltd: ITA 700-701/2010, decided on 07.05.2010 (2010-TIOL-327-C-DEL-15). 7. Consequently, Mr Vohra submitted that the writ petition ought to be allowed and the impugned notice as also the impugned order ought to be quashed. 8. Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue contended that the notice under section 148 of the said Act was not barred by limitation because, according to her, the petitioner had not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment. As such, according to her, in view of the 1st proviso to section 147 the bar of four years would not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. She also submitted, with regard to the Explanation 1 to section 147 of the said Act, that mere production before the assessing officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the assessing officer would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the 1st proviso to section 147. She finally submitted that although the reasons recorded by the assessing officer primarily appears to be based on the retrospective applicability of sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear. 12. The only ground on which the revenue is seeking to escape from the bar of limitation is that the assessee/ petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. We do not see how this can be said. The petitioner had in its return and other information supplied to the assessing officer clearly indicated that it had received dividend income to the extent of Rs.195,19,82,701/- and that it had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 54,31,565/- towards the portfolio management scheme and Rs. 8,10,000/- towards depository charges which were said to be the only expenses incurred for the purposes of earning the said dividend income which was admittedly exempt in the year in question.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and it is only then that the assessment was finalized under section 143 (3) of the said Act. It would be apposite to note the observations of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra) which are as under:- "We also cannot accept the submission of Mr Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under section 147 of the Act. The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or subsection (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of ....