TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in all these Appeals are common and the appellant assessee is one and the same person, we have heard all these Appeals together. 3. For the sake of convenience, we have listed out the issues arising in each of the Appeals in a Tabulated Format as hereunder; 4. In the above Tabulated Statement, the issues arising in each of the Appeals have been indicated with a tick mark and also the number given to the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. 5. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents Revenue. 6. We proceed to decide the various issues in seriatim as indicated in the above Tabulated Statement. The first question of law is whether the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 was justified and whether the Tribunal was right in law upholding the jurisdiction by observing that no opinion was formed, even though no fresh material was available with the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment?. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided against the assessee in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity as well as the Tribunal have concurrently held that no scientific method has been adopted by the assessee for making the provision. Further, by referring to the relevant provisions of The Sugarcane [Control] Order, 1966, more particularly, order No.5-A (1), (3), (4), (7) and (9) submitted that the liability arises only after Notification was issued by the Central Government and therefore, no provision can be made. Further, by referring to the Assessment Order, it is submitted that there is a gross discrepancy in the provision made as substantial amount of money, which was provided for in the previous year were returned back in the subsequent year, which clearly shows that no scientific method has been adopted. 13. So far as the wealth tax is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel that the wealth tax liability accrues as on 31st March of every year and nothing prevented the assessee from effecting payment under adhoc method and the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal were perfectly right in rejecting the plea raised by the assessee. 14. To decide this question, we shall first take note of the meaning of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase that the amount on wealth tax, which was paid should not be added to the net profit. However, in the case of assessee before us, he has made only a provision for the wealth tax liability and that too was an adhoc amount, which stands crystalised as on 31st March of the relevant year. Therefore, we fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in the affirming orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law nos.2, 3 and 4 are answered against the assessee. 18. So far as the substantial question of law no.5 is concerned, with regard to the provision of liability, this arises in two of the Assessment Years, namely, 1997-98 [T.C.A.No. 1411 of 2008] and 1998-99 [T.C.A.No.1412 of 2008]. This issue came up for consideration in the assessee's own case in T.C.A.No.2511 of 2006 dated 30.10.2012 [M/s.EID Parry (India) Limited vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax] wherein, the Division Bench of this Court took into consideration the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ilpea Paramount P. Ltd. reported in 336 ITR 54 and pointed out that by virtue of the Finance (No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 143(3) of the Act. 23. Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee would contend that the Assessing Officer ought not to have disallowed the provisions at the time of processing return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, since the question whether there is a liability, is a debatable issue and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction in making prima facie disallowance and to levy penalty by way of additional Tax. 24. Thus, we have to decide whether there is a debatable issue on the said point at the relevant time when the intimation was issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that this cannot be considered as a debatable issue because of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Beardsell Ltd. reported in [2000] 244 ITR 0256. In the said decision, it was held that if a debt had become irrecoverable the same could be written off and deducted from the profit of the business. A debt, the recovery of which was doubtful could not be termed to be an ascertained liability as mentioned under Section 115....