2015 (8) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-. The Assessing Officer scrutinized such return and framed a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act computing total income at Rs. 8,35,429/-. To reopen such scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. On the request of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer supplied the reasons that he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under : "In this case Assessing Officer allowed a depreciation of Rs. 38,30,000/- on wind mills which was installed during the month of February/ March 97. On the other side the assessee had failed to show any income derived out of generation and distribution of electricity by utilising wind mills. Since the wind mills were neither utilised....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laim of depreciation was made without putting the asset to use. 6. In view of the fact that the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of 4 years, the additional requirement flowing from proviso to Section 147 of the Act, namely that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment, due to the reason of the assessee failing to disclose truly and fully all material facts, must be satisfied. In view of such facts, counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions:- (1) That there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. (2) That the asset was actually put to use. Electricity was generated and supplied to the Electricity Company but the payments were rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not to be granted for whatever reason, in the original assessment, the same could have been disallowed. In fact, in the original assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed operation of the depreciation claimed by the petitioner and gave reasons for his conclusions. He, however, made no disallowance towards the depreciation of Rs. 38.30 lakhs claimed by the petitioner. 10. We are of the view that this is not a case where the Revenue could successfully contend that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Return that the petitioner filed runs into barely 3 or 4 pages. It was not as if that such claim of depreciatio....