TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculars remain identical in each of the petitions. Hence, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts, as are obtained in Special Civil Application No. 12050 of 2000, are narrated for appreciating the controversy between the parties. 3. The petitioner, a limited Company, has claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act for each of the four assessment years in question, namely, assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. It is also an accepted position between the parties that the assessments were finalised by the Assessing Officer on 15-04-1991, 06-03-1992, 23-03-1995 and 27-11-1995, respectively, all under section143(3) of the Act. The As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee has also done some trading during the year. Sale of trade goods was of Rs. 6,07,510. On the profits relatable to this trade goods, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I. The assessee has made incorrect disclosure of income by showing trading income as income from manufacturing. 3. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose income truly and fully, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. I also have reason to believe on the basis of the hon'ble Supreme Court decision, as discussed above that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The case is covered by section 147, hence, notice under section 148 is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned standing counsel submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court would always constitute information for the purpose of reopening of the assessment, and hence, the action of the respondent-authority was perfectly justified. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the apex court's decision in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Saradbhai M. Lakhani [2000] 243 ITR 1 (SC) and A. L. A. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1991] 189 ITR 285 (SC). Attention was also invited to Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act to submit that under clause (c) of the said Explanation, there was escapement of income, and once escapement of income was shown, the respondent-authority was justified in initiating reassessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessment. Though in the reasons recorded, the respondent has stated so, apparently, the said statement does not merit acceptance for the simple reason that if all material facts had not been fully and truly disclosed by the assessee, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by allowing the claim of the assessee. In fact, the law, as it then stood was understood identically both by the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Merely because subsequently the apex court pronounced the law to be otherwise, on the date of the filing of the return of the income when the assessee made a claim for deduction, the claim could not be termed to be either lacking in material particulars....