2005 (4) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t order for the assessment year in question was made by the Assessing Officer on December 27, 1996/January 3, 1997. In the order, the Assessing Officer went to record: "In response to notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1), Sri S. Chanda, authorised representative of the assessee-company appeared. The assessee was asked to file details of sundry creditors and credit balance. Advance received against advertisement and subscription. Advance against sales, details of secured loans and sundry debtors, stores consumed, etc. Even information under section 133(6) was called for from all the advertising agencies. All the parties have complied with their ledger copy of accounts and confirmed the transactions. Further the assessee was asked to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deduction under section 35 was wrongly allowed for Rs 1,81,07,900 while making the assessment under section 143(3) on January 3, 1997. I have reasons to believe that income to the extent of Rs. 1,81,07,900 has escaped assessment." While counsel for the petitioner argues that the reasons disclosed in the opposition are no reasons to empower the authority to assume the jurisdiction to reopen the case, counsel for the Revenue argues that in the absence of any other remedy available to the Revenue the reopening of the case became imperative. By citing to me the apex court decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO reported in [1961] 41 ITR 191, counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned notice must be set aside for lack of total ....