TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the addition of Rs. 14,25,38,173/- made on account of provision for doubtful debt." 2. Brief fact are that the assessee company in the relevant assessment year was engaged in the business of generation of power and executing trunkey projects. It filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 2,72,31,272/- and the book profit was shown u/s 115JB at Rs. 7,03,23,450/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed at NIL income as against the loss returned. The AO has observed that from the verification of record it transpired that assessee debited a provision for bad and doubtful debts to P&L A/c and the same was added back by the assessee in its computation of income under normal provisions. However, while calculating income u/s 115JB, to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de questionnaire dated 3-6- 2006 at sl. No. 9 had sought explanation/ verification regarding details of provisions made during the year. The assessee had filed detailed note with regard to provision for doubtful debts vis a vis 115JB of the Act. After considering it, the AO did not take any adverse view. Therefore, the reopening after four years was on account of change of opinion on a issue duly examined by AO. Further, it was pointed out that the view taken by the AO was in fact fortified by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. 287 ITR 170 and CIT Vs. Indraprastha Medical Corpn. Ltd. 214 CTR 703 available at the time of the passing of the assessment order dated 11-12-2006, holding that provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, allowed the assessee's appeal. 2.5. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Ld. DR submitted that AO was following the law for reopening. He relied on the order of AO. 4. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions have perused the record of the case. Admittedly the reopening has been done after 4 years from the end of assessment year and, therefore, the proviso to section 147 was attracted in assessee's case. In view of the mandate of proviso there has to be failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly on the part of the assessee and then only reassessment proceedings could be justified after 4 years. However, in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of chartered accountants in Form No. 29B and annexures thereto as well as annual financial accounts - Schedules forming part of balance sheet as on 31-3-2003 were also filed along with annual accounts - Pointed attention of Assessing Officer had been drawn to Note No.3 of Schedule H appended to balance sheet - Said note explained entry made in profit and loss account on account 'of provision for diminution in value of investment - Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order under section 143(3) computing total income at nil - On 19-5-2008, he issued a notice under section 148 to assessee for reopening assessment - Assessing Officer was of view that provision made for diminution in value of investment was added back by assessee for ....