TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) both by the petitioner as well as the Income Tax Department which were pending at the time of filing the present petition. Thereafter, by the impugned notice dated 30.3.2001, the petitioner's assessment for assessment year 1995-96 came to be reopened. The petitioner, therefore, vide letter dated 4.4.2001, requested the respondent to furnish the reasons for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. The respondent vide letter dated 12.4.2001 informed the petitioner that there was no statutory provision for providing "reasons recorded for issuing notice under section 148". Since the copy of the reasons was not provided to the petitioner and the proceedings were also not dropped, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the petition, the respondent has filed an affidavit in-reply annexing along therewith a copy of the reasons recorded, which read thus: "M/s United Phosphorous Limited - A.Y. 1995-96 Reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act The assessee is a widel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. The total eligible profit shown therein, exactly tallies with the total eligible profit shown in Annexure-F as annexed to the rejoinder affidavit. It is further averred that there was a true and full disclosure and that deduction under sections 80I and 80IA of the Act is claimed only on the profits of the eligible units. It is also averred that for the year under challenge, the issue of quantification of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act has already been adjudicated by the ITAT wherein the ITAT very categorically stated that the respondent has not pointed out any mistake or discrepancy in the calculation of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act as submitted by the petitioner. Further ITAT accepted the claim as well as the working of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act as submitted by the petitioner and directed the respondent to allow the same without any further reduction in the quantum of deduction. It is submitted that once the calculation of the deduction is accepted and approved by the ITAT which is the highest fact finding authority so far as the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, the respondent has no jurisdiction to disturb the same.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of the income from other sources of Rs.1,90,02,558/-. Inviting attention to the statement showing allocation of income and expenses to eligible units and non-eligible units for deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act (Annexure "F" to the rejoinder affidavit), it is pointed out that the reasons recorded are factually erroneous inasmuch as, the petitioner has not claimed deduction under the said provisions in respect of other income amounting to Rs.115,019 ,560/- as is evident from the said statement. The learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the Assessing Officer, in consequence of information in his possession, had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel also submitted that for the year under consideration the quantification of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.05.2001 in I.T.A. No.35/Ahmedabad/2000 whereby the Tribunal has accepted the claim and working of deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act as submitted by the petitioner, hence the respondent ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es viz. rent, export incentive, advance licence benefit, miscellaneous receipts, technical know-how fees, insurance claim, refund of sales tax, refund of electricity duty etc., which in view of the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods (supra) and CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. did not fall within the purview of profit derived from industrial undertaking. The Assessing Officer was also of the view that deduction was not allowable on income from other sources of Rs.5,13,19,084/-. According to the Assessing Officer the petitioner had not disclosed fully and truly the nature and details of the above referred income, which was a material fact for completion of assessment. In this regard it may be pertinent to refer to the detailed statement bifurcating figures of Profit and Loss Account between eligible, that is units eligible for deduction under section 80I and 80IA of the Act and other units which clearly shows that the other income of Rs.11,50,19,560/- is not allocated to Eligible unit on which deduction under section 80I and section 80IA is available. Thus, it appears that the basic premise on which the assessment is sought to be re....