TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A' Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.3345/Mds/2016 and C.O.No.15/Mds/2017 for the Assessment Year under consideration (AY 2009-10). The appeal was admitted on 30.11.2018 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: i).Whether the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the Department had no jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee u/s.147 of the Act which was beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, when the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2014, which is before the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year 2009-10? ii)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the relevant assessment year. Further it is seen that the assessee had debited Rs. 8,26,576/- on trade mark expenses. Since trade mark comes under intangible assets only depreciation has to be allowed. 3. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was convinced with the explanation offered by the assessee insofar as the first reason, pertaining to the alleged excess purchase charges of Rs. 22,34,52,450/-. In the order of reassessment dated 27.03.2015 in paragraph no.6.1, the Assessing Officer has recorded that the purchases to the tune of Rs. 22,34,52,450/- was done through MCX and the same is found to be in order. 4. With regard to the second issue namely the correctness of the debit of Rs. 4,18,209/- done by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the fact that the issue is not one of the reasons to reopen, in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, in the course of proceedings, if it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer that income in respect of any of the issues has escaped assessment, he can exercise his power to assess or reassess under Section 147 of the Act. 6. We do not wish to go into the said controversies because the assessee did not contend that the said point cannot be taken up by the Assessing Officer but appears to have given their explanation when point was put forth to the assessee. The assessee submitted that their transactions are covered under Proviso (a) to Section 43(5) of the Act as they are in the business of trading in Gold and have enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rees that the assessee's transaction would fall under Clause a to Section 43(5) of the Act, gives the interpretation that each of the clauses are to be considered cumulatively. 8. In our understanding and on a plain reading of the Statute, we find that each of the clauses under Section 43(5) deals with separate type of contracts / transactions. Therefore, there is no room to give any interpretation to read the expression 'or' as 'and'. Be that as it may, on facts, the CIT(A) examined as to whether the business loss claimed by the assessee can be treated as a Speculative Loss and held that it cannot be done so and the Tribunal also held that there was no fresh materials to treat it as Speculative Loss. 9. Mr.T.Pramodkum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 30.03.2014, one day before the end of the four year period. 11. On verification of the facts we find that the stand taken by the Revenue appears to be right and the assessment was reopened within four years that is one day prior to 31.03.2014, by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Even if it is so, the statute mandates that the Assessing Officer has to have reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and there are long line of decisions which say that there should be material to show that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the instant case all the details were available at the first instance before the Assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment. In such circumstances, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee before the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and no new material had surfaced during reassessment proceedings. In fact the Assessing Officer wanted to reopen the proceedings on three grounds, two of the grounds were held to be not grounds for reopening and held in favour of the assessee, on the third ground, partial relief was granted to the assessee. 15. Mr.Pramodkumar Chopda, learned counsel had referred to the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 2010 (187) Taxman.312 (SC) and CIT Vs. Ashley Services Ltd., 2014 (44) Taxmann.com (Madras), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai Vs. Santech Solutions (P) Ltd., 2018 (97) Taxmann.com 179 (Madras) and Tractors ....