2023 (11) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53,270/-. Petitioner filed the said return along with audited accounts, Form 3CD and other prescribed documents. Petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny and various queries were raised particularly in respect of deductions under Section 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Petitioner responded and explained that the amount of bad debts claimed have been revised in the revised return on account of a change in the credit balance which was taken as per the revised claim in the return for the preceding Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. In its reply dated 12th August 2016, Petitioner submitted detailed explanation with respect of the deductions for bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,260/- after adjusting earlier years provision of Rs. 564,81,45,059/- and allowed deduction of Rs. 166,86,41,107/- under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act after adjusting the provision of Rs. 565,64,28,212/- for bad and doubtful debts allowed as per order giving effect passed for assessment year 2012-13. The amount of Rs. 760,00,00,000/- was allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act whereas the deduction of Rs. 950,71,42,265/- was allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the said order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order for the relevant assessment year. 7. Subsequently, based on audit objections, Petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act stating that Petitioner's income has escaped assessment. Petitioner was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f relevant assessment, the onus is on Respondents to prove that there was failure on the part of Petitioner to truly and fully disclose material facts required for the assessment. Ms. Vissanji submitted that the reasons do not indicate that there was failure to disclose and, therefore, on this ground alone the notice is not sustainable. 10. Though repeatedly time was taken to file affidavit in reply, no reply has been filed. 11. We have considered the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. In our view, the reopening cannot be sustained. 12. The first proviso to Section 147 prescribes a limit of four years for reopening an assessment in a case where an assessment has been made under Section 143(3) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and fully disclose material facts. 14. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued notices under Section 142(1) and also issued questionnaires from time to time with respect to Petitioner's claim under Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and Petitioner has answered all those queries. In the assessment order, Petitioner's claim under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(1) (viia) and Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act has been discussed in detail and certain amount of bad debts had been disallowed. In fact, Petitioner had carried that in appeal to CIT(A) and an order giving effect to the order passed by the CIT(A) came to be passed. Therefore, the reasons as recorded for reopen....