TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registered under the Companies Act 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of paints and related products. The Petitioner is regularly assessed to income-tax. This petition relates to the assessment year 2003-04. The Petitioner had on 20-11-2003 filed returns of income declaring income of Rs.227,72,31,850/- inter alia disclosing provision for estimated liability of arrears of wages payable to workmen at its Ankleshwar Plant and contribution by way of reimbursement of capital loss incurred by Provident Funds, Gratuity and Superannuation Funds. On 7-12-2005, a notice-cum-questionaire was issued to the petitioner in the course of assessment proceedings investigating into aforesaid issue. On 15-12-2005, the petitioner fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, 2005 and 17th January, 2006, provided detailed explanation on why the said two amounts deserved to be allowed and it was only thereafter that the Assessing Officer had passed the order allowing the Company's claim for the said expenditure. It was claimed that in this situation, therefore, notice under Section 148 has been issued only because the Assessing Officer had changed his opinion. It was claimed that the proceedings under Section 147 cannot be taken up merely because there is change of opinion. 5. The objection of the Petitioner has been disposed of by a reasoned order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax dated 14th May, 2008. Perusal of that order shows that according to Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax all the relevant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se to provision of Section 147 for his own failure to apply his mind to the material which according to him is relevant and which was available on record. We find that this situation has been considered by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2002) 256 ITR 1 and the Full Bench has observed thus (page19): "The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or sub-section (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of Section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well ....