AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neous petition (MP No. 22/Coch/2012) for recalling the order of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 17, 2014. The Tribunal vide its order dated December 11, 2015 in MP No. 22/Coch/2012 recalled the order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follow : 2.1 The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the return of income was filed on November 27, 2006, declaring a total income of Rs. 45,56,76,918. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed vide order dated December 29, 2008. Later, notice under section 148 was issued for reopening the assessment and reassessment under section 143 read with section 147 of the Act was completed on December 22, 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal, the conditions mentioned in the first proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act are not fulfilled for reopening the assessment. 5. The Department filed a miscellaneous petition recalling the Tribunal order dated October 17, 2014. In the miscellaneous petition filed, the Department produced proof to show that notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and hence the proviso to section 147 does not have application to the facts of the instant case. The Tribunal vide its order dated December 11, 2015 recalled its earlier order dated October 17, 2014. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in M. P. No. 22/Coch/2015 reads as follow : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer, who had completed the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act and hence the reopening of assessment on the same point on which the specific query was raised is not possible. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements : (i) CIT v. Siva Traders [2002] 255 ITR 77 (Ker) (ii) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2014] 362 ITR 403 (Bom); [2014] 267 CTR 228 (Bom) (iii) Vatika Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Delhi) (iv) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2013] 356 ITR 209 (Delhi) 6.1 The learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accessories. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was examination by the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment proceedings whether the asses see is entitled to depreciation on computer accessories at the rate of 60 per cent. In other words, there was no conscious opinion formed by the Assessing Officer while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act to allow the claim of depreciation on computer accessories at the rate of 60 per cent. The assessee had contended that all the necessary details on which the depreciation has been claimed has been furnished in the course of original assessment and therefore, there is no scope for reassessment. This contention of the asses see cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and thereafter the Assessing Officer had not disallowed the said expenditure in the course of original assessment. Therefore, it was submitted that was an opinion formed as regards the above two issues by the Assessing Officer concerned in the original assessment and hence the reassessment on these issues cannot be validly made. We are only upholding the validity of reassessment since we already found that there was no examination by the Assessing Officer in course of original assessment proceeding as regards the claim of depreciation on computer accessories. Technical know-how expenditure and royalty termination fee, whether it is to be allowed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure and whether disallowance can be subject matter of ....