2013 (1) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he claim was allowed erroneously in the assessment for the initial year without verifying whether all necessary conditions were fulfilled. b) Whether expenses incurred in connection with the issue of share under private placement and not in a public issue, are eligible for amortization u/s 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2 For the assessment year 2000-2001, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 30.01.2006 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allowing a deduction of expenses incurred with regard to share issue under Section 35D of the Act. In terms of the Section 35D of the Act these expenses though incurred in assessment year 2000-01 had to be amortized over a period of 5 years. The afor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd to reopening under section 148 of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) held by his order that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35D of the Act for all the three years under consideration i.e. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 200-405. 6 The revenue filed appeals for the Assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 from the order of CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its common order dated 28.04.2012 disposed of appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and also the appeal for assessment year 2000-01 against the order of the CIT(A) holding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. While dealing with the assessment year 2000-01 the Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act was bad.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent points out that the revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01 in as much as the revenue has filed no appeal from the order of the Tribunal for that year. This is specifically so stated by the revenue in para 4 of the appeal memo. Therefore, the appeal ought not to be entertained. 8. The submission of Mr. Chandrapal, the Advocate for the revenue that the order passed for the assessment year 2000-01 allowing the benefit of Section 35D of the Act was passed perincurim is a submission made for the first time before this court. We find no such submission being made on behalf of the revenue before the Tribunal. Moreover, the concept of perincurim would mean passing of an order in ignorance of s....