2012 (3) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the book profit, setting off brought forward depreciation/loss. 2. Short facts apropos are that assessee engaged in oil drilling, had filed return of income which was processed under Section 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Thereafter, the return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 3.3.2006. On 25.3.2008, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for a reason that there was escapement of income on account of wrong adjustment of carried forward business loss/depreciation, whichever was lower, for the purpose of computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. In the reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the earlier computation of book pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (256 ITR 1). Ld. CIT(Appeals) was appreciative of these contentions. According to him, Assessing Officer while doing assessment under Section 143(3) originally, was having all the material with regard to computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act and by reopening, he was only attempting to do a review of the assessment order. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that a reopening could not be done on change of mind, when the primary facts were already before the Assessing Officer. It was also held by ld. CIT(Appeals) that the adjustment specified in clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB was correctly done by the assessee in so far as setting off of carried business loss/depreciatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the course of original assessment proceedings, there was no opinion ever formed and hence, there could be no question of change of opinion. As per the D.R., there was no opinion formed by the Assessing Officer in the first place and therefore, decisions relied on by ld. CIT(Appeals) for holding that reassessment proceedings were initiated simply on change of opinion, was incorrect. According to learned D.R., clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act was not correctly applied by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. Assessee had in assessment year 2000-01 itself adjusted substantial part of its book losses excluding depreciation and later in assessment year 2002-03 also substantial part of book losses were adjus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....four years from the end of the assessment year and here, in this case, the reopening was well within the time-frame of four years. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:- 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (SC) 102 ITR 287 2. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 3. Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 4. A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622 5. ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. (SC) 224 ITR 362 6. Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. CIT (Mad) 48 ITR 314 7. Indo-Aden Salt Mfg.& Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 159 ITR 624 8. ACIT v. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (India) Ltd. (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 3 ITR (Trib) 600 7. Issue on merits will become relevant only after dealing with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (supra) was dated 18th January, 2010, whereas, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal gave its decision in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. (supra) on 27th March, 2009. So, once Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra), we have to decide the issue based on the law laid down by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). Now, coming to the facts relevant to the case in hand, undisputedly, assessee had in its computation of income given the work-out of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act and a copy of this, which is placed Department's paper-book page No.12 clearly demonstrates that the claim of set off ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Refund determined as per order u/s 143(1) dt 16/03/04 38,29,000 NIL 8. Assessee having filed the details of the computation of book profit u/s.115JB and the Assessing Officer having himself prepared a computation and made it a part of assessment order, it will not be possible to say that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The reason why we can say so is clear from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd.'s case. It is clearly mentioned therein that the Assessing Officer can be presumed to have applied his mind and formed an opinion, as per Section 114(e) of Evidence Act, even where no specific reference to the point of enquiry was there in the assessment order. It is also observ....