TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, rectifying the errors. The petitioner filed exhibit P-3 appeal against exhibit P-1 assessment order and the same is pending consideration before the appellate authority. Challenging exhibit P-2 order under section 154 of the Act, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority who considered and dismissed the same as per exhibit P-4 order dated November 11, 2009. This in turn was sought to be challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi. After considering the same, the matter was remanded to be heard and disposed of, along with exhibit P-3 appeal, vide exhibit P-5 order dated June 30, 2010. Both the appeals are stated as pending, as on date. While so, the petitioner was served with exhibit P-6 notice d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel that the proposed exercise sought to be pursued by the third respondent is only by way of review/ change in opinion, which is not permissible, in view of the law declared by this court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). The very purpose of furnishing detailed reasons for invoking the power and procedure under section 147 is to enable the party to contest the matter then and there, without having the necessity to undergo any detailed assessment and further proceedings, if the same is otherwise not sustainable in law as discernible from the decision rendered by the apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner is constrained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10B amounting to US$ 123691 (Rs.49,08,058.85) for the assessment year 2005-06. However, the assessee itself has confirmed in Form 56G submitted for the assessment year 2008-09 that the company has not realized the same amount in convertible foreign exchange till date. Subsequently, the assessee has written-off this amount and claimed deduction for the same. Hence, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 10B(3) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act." It was in response to the above reason that the petitioner furnished exhibit P-9 statement of objection, which led to exhibit P-12 order. This court finds that the respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee was not prima faice acceptable. The third respondent also observed that the particulars of the income for the assessment years 2005-06 filed by the assessee was inaccurate and that the same was detected only subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09. The pendency of the appeal was not a bar as escapement of income quantified in the reassessment was never to be part of the subject matter of the pending appeal. After referring to the factual particulars as above, the third respondent placed reliance on the Explanation to section 147 and also on the law declared by this court in CIT v. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. [2010] 191 Taxman 333 (Ker). It was, accordingly, that exhibit ....