2009 (8) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessment with respect to the assessment year 2002-2003. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in a business of manufacturing and export of footwear. For the assessment year 2002-2003 the assessee company filed the return of income on 30.1.2002 declaring an income of Rs. 3,02,91,449/-. In this return of income the petitioner had claimed deduction under Section 80-G, 80-HHC and 80-IB of the Act. The return of income was filed along with the following documents: "(i) Audited Accounts (ii) Tax Audit Report (iii) Audit Report in Form No. 10-CCAC for claim of deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Act (iv) Detailed computation of income along with the detailed working of deduction claimed under Section 80-HHC ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 29.3.2005. The assessee thereafter received the impugned notice dated 29.1.2007 under Section 148 of the Act. On receipt of the notice under Section 148, the assessee company applied for the reasons for re-opening the assessment which were furnished to the assessee as under: "Reasons for reopening the assessment in the case of M/s Carlton Overseas Ltd. for the A.Y. 2002-03. Return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 was filed on 31.10.02 declaring the income of Rs. 23,70,590/- and the case was assessed u/s 143(3) at an income of Rs. 27,44,850/-. On perusal of the return, it was noticed that the assessee was allowed deduction of Rs. 70.70 lakhs under Section 80IA and the same was not deducted from the profit of the business for the purpose of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....profits of the business while computing deduction under Section 80-HHC, and therefore the mistake has resulted in the incorrect allowance of deduction of Rs. 49.08 lakhs involving a short levy of tax of Rs. 24.57 lakhs including interest. Mr. Vohra contends that it is quite clear in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that no new facts have come on record and the impugned notice is merely based on a change of opinion bring on the basis of the same material which was already available with the Assessing Officer at the time of making initial assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Mr. Vohra, in support of his contention, has specifically relied upon Transworld International Inc. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, 273....