TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 is sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer. 3. The Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 on 31 October 2004. As the book profits under Section 115 JB were higher than the tax on the total income, the total income was computed under Section 115JB and a tax of Rs.10.12 lakhs was paid. On 7 January 2005, a revised return of income was filed by which an amount of Rs.1.10 crores representing a loan which was remitted by an Overseas Lender was reduced from the total income declared by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner had in 2001 obtained a loan of Swiss Franc one million from a Company based in Switzerland, George Fischer A.G. The loan was availed of for the purpose of financing the acqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CIT v/s. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 267 ITR page 770. The copy of the said decision is enclosed herewith." 6. Apart from this disclosure, in the revised computation of income, the Petitioner had shown an amount of Rs.1.10 crores as Sundry Credit Balances written back to the Profit and Loss Account and not considered as income. A note appended to the computation of income was as follows:- "Sundry Credit Balance being Loan - the remission of Liability Written Back Not Considered as income - Relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 267 ITR Page No.770." 7. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 29 September 2006, accepting the computation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclosure within the meaning of the proviso of Section 147. The Assessing Officer has held that the claim of the Petitioner that there was no failure to disclose fully and truly all the facts material to the assessment is not correct. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that (i) The reopening of the assessment in the present case is beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year; (ii) The jurisdictional condition for reopening an assessment in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that Assessment Year; (iii) Both in the computation of income as well as during the course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment for that Assessment Year. As noted earlier, in the narration of facts, there was a disclosure by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings of the fact that (i) During the previous year ending 31 March 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into with a Swiss Company; (ii) Under the MOU, the outstanding balance of the loan was settled at Swiss Francs 480,000 as against the outstanding balance of 800,000 Swiss francs; (iii) The assessee has written back an amount equivalent to Swiss Francs 320,000 equivalent to Rs.1.10 crores as a loan not payable. The assessee relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 267 ITR 770 in support of the submission that the wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon by the Assessing Officer has no application. This is not a case where an assessee has merely produced account books and other evidence from which material evidence could have with due diligence been gathered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had both in a note appended to the computation of income and in its letter dated 14 September 2006 brought the attention of the Assessing Officer to bear on the primary facts. Hence for this case, the correctness of the claim of the assessee, as granted upon the acceptance of the computation in the original order of assessment, does not fall for determination here. All primary facts for making the claim were disclosed to the Assessing Officer. Even assuming that there was an error on the pa....