TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fresh inf8rmation in the C&AG's report received subsequent to the passing of the original assessment u/s.143(3) and therefore, the reopening is very much valid and tenable in law. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening of assessment u/s.147 was on account of change of opinion on the issue considered in the assessment completed u/s.143(3). 2.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no opinion on the issue was given by the AO while completing the assessment u/s.143(3) and therefore, reopening u/s.147 could not be held to be made on account of change of Opinion. 2.4 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that on a similar issue, the jurisdictional Tribunal had held in the case M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 720/Mds/2015 that since there is no opinion was formed at the time of regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and the assessee has filed objections to reopening of the Act and ld. Assessing Officer considered the objection of the assessee on the reopening of assessment, the reopening of the assessment is valid. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecurity premium account against which it was adjusted and reflected in the P&L account by way of presentation. The Ld. AO added this amount to the income assessed under normal provisions of section as well as P&L account computation u/s. 115JB of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO has re-opened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of the report of the Centralized Audit Unit, CAG. But later on, the Ministry has rejected the report as reported by the CAG. As per the report of the CAG, it is mentioned that the transfer from the share premium account to P&L account as resulted to conversion of the capital receipts into Revenue receipts as credit to the P&L account reduced from statement of income. The main object of the CAG is that the assessee cannot take a different stand one in the Income Tax purpose and another for the book purpose i.e., treating it as capital receipts for the Income Tax purpose and crediting it to P&L account for the book purpose. The objection raised by the CAG was amply replied by the Income Tax Department and they had clearly identified that it was only the presentation and only because the High Court had ordered for such entries routed through, the same was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 122 Taxman 562 has held that the AO while computing the income under Section 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The A.O. thereafter has limited power of making additions and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said section. To put it differently, the A.O. does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the P&L account except to the I extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.This principle is applicable to the assessee as well hence the assessee company can't make any addition or deduction other than what is furnished in the explanation to section 115 JB. Hence, Rs. 323,53,00,000/- is considered as unascertainable provisions / loss and added back to the income under MAT provision, Further the other additions made (subject to the Direction of the Ld. CIT (A)) vide order dated 2H2.2011 holds good for the reason said in the said order." 9. After the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudication. 11. During the hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative (in brevity 'the DR') vehemently argued and submitted the written submissions following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as follows: (i) CIT vs P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd reported in [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (ii) Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in [1989] 44 Taxman 186 (iii) CIT vs First Leasing Co. of India Ltd reported in [2001] 118 Taxman 181. As per the Ld. DR, the Ld. AO has correctly re-opened after receiving the report from the CAG and the assessee cannot be adjusted this amount during computation u/s. 115JB of the Act. 12. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued on that issue and mentioned that the assessment was made provisions u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The documents with audit report were filed before the Ld. AO. The re-opening u/s. 148 of the Act is nothing but a change of opinion and no tangible material was found during the re-opening u/s. 148 of the Act. He further told that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary in its assessment so there is no reason to believe that income has es....