TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first legal issue raised by assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment by the AO under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act, even though there was no escapement of income by the assessee and reopening is beyond four years and there is no allegation by the Revenue that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for reassessment relating to the assessment year under consideration. For this assessee has raised following two grounds: - "1) On the (acts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sheet and Profit & Loss Account' that the "Export Earnings Received' during the previous year was Rs. 4,24,14,147/- whereas the assessee has shown 'Export Sales' of Rs. 3,96,20,200/- in the P&L A/c of the previous year. Thereby, the assessee has not offered the differential sum of s.27,93,947/- to tax during the previous year relevant to the to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee ought to have suo mot offered Rs. 27,93,947/- to tax. Also, the issue was not examined by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. Therefore this has resulted into escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 27,93,947/- involving short levy of tax. 3. Further, it is seen from the depreciation schedule as per Income Tax act that the rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee vide letter dated 14.11.2013 replied and raised the objection for reopening on the following points:- "1) The Export earning received is shown at Rs. 4.24 Crores whereas export sales is of Rs. 3.96 crores 2) The reconciliation between this two figures is as follows: Income Reconciliation statement FY 2005-06 Particulars Amount in Rs. Export Earning in foreign currency 42,414,147 Add Debit Notes raised on customers sales as per sales register 8,63,292 Less Freight expenses on export bills 3,657,239 Export sales reported in B/sheet 39,620,200 3) In view of above the difference in two figures is on account of reconciliation & different nomenclature used while putting notes to accounts. There is no differenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the pea that there was no escapement of income and the additions were made on the items which are different from that given in the "reasons recorded for reopening". The written submissions made in this context finds place at Para 3 of this order. The basic plea of the assessee is that the additions were made on two items [disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and taxing the income on sale of its property as short term capital gain instead of tong term capital gain], which are different from the one mentioned in the 'reasons' communicated for reopening the assessment. The issue is considered. Prima-facie it would appear that no additions were made on the items / issues which were considered as reason to believe' for reopening the case, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as mentioned in the first ground in 'reason to believe and therefore, the assessee's plea that no additions were made on the basis of reasons to believe' is not correct. The decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd reported in [2011] 331 1TR 236 is not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. Further, its plea that the reopening was based on mere change of opinion is also misplaced. There is no illegality in reopening the case, even after four years, on the grounds recorded as 'reason to believe' and therefore, both the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed." Aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 6. We have gone through th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read these words as being in the alternative would be to rewrite the language used by Parliament. Our view has been supported by the background which led to the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147. Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation that was placed on the words "and also" by the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ram Singh's case (supra). Parliament has not taken away the basis of that decision. While it is open to Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147(1) as they stood after the amendment of 1-4-1989 continue to hold the field.." 7. As in the present case before us, the AO reopened the assessment on the issue of excess claim of depreci....