TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to sub-section (1) to section 151, which is not based on facts and circumstances of the case. (2) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., reported in 198 ITR 297. (3) That the issue of addition in the reassessment order u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Public Sector Enterprises, which is engaged in the activities of mining and extraction of coal as also in managing the coal mining industry in the nationalized sector. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 14.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 244,19,98,000/-. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 11.12.2008, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 605,55,75,000/- after making certain additions/disallowances. Thereafter the Assessing Officer found on further verification of records that there was escapement of income of the assessee from the assessment for the year under consideration. He accordingly reopened the assessment af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the assessment originally completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) was reopened by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without pointing out that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment as a result of the failure of the asessee to furnish fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. He contended that the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer beyond a period of four years without pointing out such failure on the part of the assessee thus was bad-in-law being barred by limitation as per the 1st proviso to section 147 and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) in pursuance thereof was rightly annulled by the ld. CIT(Appeals) being invalid. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on reocrd. It is observed that the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2006-07 was re opened by the Assessing Officer on 05.08.2011 after recording the following reasons:- "On further verification or records, it is revealed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. reported in 198 ITR 297. (3) That the issue of addition in the reassessment order u/s 147 has not been considered by the ld. CIT(A) in the judgment. 9. In the assessment originally completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 14.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 553,79,34,548/- as against the total income of Rs. 205,15,88,000/- declared by the assessee in its return of income. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and vide his appellate order dated 06.06.2010, the ld. CIT(Appeals) disposed of the same. The appeal effect to the said order was given to the assessee on 02.08.2010 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 205,61,87,822/-. Thereafter the Assessing Officer on further verification of records found that there was escapement of income of the assessee from assessment for the year under consideration. He accordingly reopened the assessment and issued a notice under section 148 aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch brought forward business loss was not allowable to be set off u/s.72(l). Therefore, there was a mistake in computation of Income and led to under assessment of income of the assessee. (2) Scrutiny of serial No.10.1 of schedule M (notes on accounts) revealed that recognition of revenue in respect of interest claim amounting to Rs. 6811.78 lakhs and Apex Charges amounting to Rs. 1210.00 lakhs attributable to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) and recognition Of Rs. 176.58 lakhs attributable to interest for the year on VRS loan to Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL) in the year's account had been deferred although VRS loon had been squared up by ECL to the assessee company on 31/03/2007. Now from the assessment order it was revealed that though interest claim amounting to Rs. 6811.78 lakhs and Apex charges amounting to Rs. 1210.00 lakhs attributable to the BCCL were added back by the deportment, interest amounting to Rs. 176.58 lakhs on VRS loan attributable to the ECL was not added beck. As the assessee company was following mercantile system of accounting the income accrued in the form of interest on VRS loan during the year was required to be accounted for i....