TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons for initiation of re-assessment proceedings, the AO has stated as under in the assessment order:- "The following reasons were recorded before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act:- "It has come to notice that under section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 interest paid on borrowed fund for acquiring of capital assets is not deductible till the date of their utilization in business but the assesses has claimed the interest on this amount in its profit and loss account. As per Balance Sheet, status of borrowed funds was as under: Capital work in progress in IMT Gurgaon unit Rs.2,17,66,774/- Secured and unsecured loans Rs.12,48,72,290/- Loan (Inter units) from Faridabad unit in IMF unit Rs.1,72,97,700/- The assessee in IMT units claimed deduction of interest of Rs. 81,85,546/- and in Faridabad unit from which above funds were transferred to IMT Gurgaon of Rs. 7,41,789/-. Thus, total interest for IMT unit was paid of Rs. 89,27,335/- for which deduction has been claimed and allowed. Since 15. 31% funds were utilized in capital work in progress which was not been put into use in business upto 31.03.2005. Therefore, 15.31% of total interest paid b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same with help of Paper Book and copy of Audit Objection raised by Revenue Audit. The Ld.AR also contended that the dispute is covered in faovur of assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the following cases:- (i) Landbase India Ltd. vs DCIT [2015] 43 ITR (Trib) 172 (ITAT [Del]); (ii) Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs ACIT [2016] 47 ITR (Trib) 198 (ITAT[Del]); (iii) Upkar International P.Ltd. vs DCIT [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 551 (ITAT [Del]); and (iv) Magppie Exports vs DCIT [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 47 (ITAT [Del]). (B.3). For ease of reference, the written submissions filed by the assessee are reproduced as under:- Hence it is requested as follows:- 1. "CIT(A) Faridabad is erred in concluding that notice u/s 148 is valid and reassessment proceedings are validly initiated. The appellant prays that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law. The conditions stipulated u/s 147 is not satisfied. Thus it may be concluded that neither the reopening not the additions made by the AO was valid and therefore, reopening should be quashed and additions should be deleted. 2. The assessee is very much eligible as per law to claim deduction u/s 80IB a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces in support to above with pleasure, for which the assessee may be appraised for further compliance. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3B ABOVE. Judgement Number Judgement Name 1. Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC). 2. Deputy CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 129 (SC). 3. Voltas Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 656 (Bom). 4. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Delhi). 5. Atomstroyexport v. Deputy DIT (I.T.) [2014] 363 ITR 612 (Bom). 6. Sayaji Hotels Ltd. v. ITO [2011] 339 ITR 498 (Guj). 7. Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 161 (Bom). 17. Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC). 28. HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING CO. vs. CIT AND ANOTHER [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del) 29. WEL INTERTRADE P. LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ITO [2009] 308 ITR 22 (Del) 30. NESTLE INDIA LTD. vs.DCIT [2016] 384 ITR 334 (Del) 31. CIT (LTU) vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2016] 382 ITR 574 (Bom) 32. MUNJALSHOWA LTD. vs.DCIT AND ANOTHER [2016] 382 ITR 555 (Del) 33. NIRMAL BANG SECURITIES PVT. LTD. vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974J 97 ITR 239 (SC). 19 Asst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC). 20 CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012] 348 iTR 485 (Delhi). 26 ABHA GUPTA Vs. DCIT [2016] 385 ITR 452 (Del) 27 ALLIED STRIPS LTD. vs. ACIT [2016] 384 ITR 424 (Del) 34 SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.(Earlier known as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) vs. DCIT AND ANOTHER[2016] 381 ITR 387 (Del) 36 CIT vs.ARVIND REMEDIES LTD. [2015] 378 ITR 547 (Mad) 37 CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD. vs.DCIT [2015] 378 ITR 318 (Del) 42 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs DCIT [2013] 351 ITR 23 (Del) (B.4). The Ld.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and relied upon their orders. (C). We have heard both the sides patiently. We have also considered all materials on record. The central issue in dispute is whether initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act vide aforesaid notice dated 29.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act is valid in law. We find that the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated vide notice issued on 29.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific adjudication being academic in nature; hence not decided. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 14th of March 2017. ============= Document 1 S.No. Particulars 1. Returned Income Rs.41,97,398.00 ITR Enclosed Page PB 1-2 72-79 Assessed Income u/s 143(3) Rs.52,74,330.00 on 19-12-2007 Asstt Order Rectified u/s 154 Rs.50,89,020.00 on 10-03-2008 Rectification Order 81-83 2. 3. Appeal filed before CIT(A)-against order u/s 143(3) is allowed to withdraw on 23-06- PB 81-83 09 as necessary rectification was allowed in order dated 10-03-2008 u/s 154 (Para 3 A) NOTICE U/S 148 IS VOID-AB-INITIO Proposal Sent to CIT for approval Got Approval 26-03-12 28-03-12 29-03-12 PB 159 Notice issued u/s 148 The reasons were not recorded on the date of issuance of notice. The entries in the order sheet were made on 19-09-12 being computerized entries can't be made in advance / can't be predicted, it means the entries in order sheet were never made on 26-03-12/28-03-12/29-03-12 (before the issuance of notice u/s 148), 15-05-12/11-09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke a return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. INFACT ALL THE FACTS FULLY DISCLOSED, i.e. WHY THE AUDIT OBJECTIONS HAS BEEN RAISED SO SPECIFICALLY, HAD THE INFORAMATION NOT SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSEMENT, NO SUCH DATA BEFORE THE AUDIT TEAM, VIZ A VIZ NO AUDIT OBJECTIONS Places severe restriction on the power of the AO to reopen an assessment order passed under section 143/147, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, except in cases where assessee has failed to file a return of income under section 139, 142(1) or under section 148 or has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year. -> The assessee has filed all the material facts in its ITR, disclosed all the facts while scrutiny u/s 143(2)/(3) -> No where in the "Reasons" stated that the assessee failed to disclosed all the facts. -> Asstt Order - Even clearly-indicates "Books of Accounts Produced" Relevant judicial prono....