TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the decision in case of Saroj Ceramic Industries Versus Income Tax Officer reported in 2014 42 Taxmann.com 372 (Gujarat). Accordingly, this petition is filed and registered. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on record while disposing of the Appeal being ITA No. 1708/Ahd/2001 for Assessment Year 1991-92 by observing the fact that the petitioner did not disclose truly and fully all the particulars necessary for the assessment whereas, the petitioner disclosed truly and fully all the particulars necessary for the assessment. It was pointed out that during the course of regular assessment, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 30th March, 1994 considering the issue of depreciation in paragraph No. 11.2. 4.2. It was submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23rd April, 1997 to reopen the assessment on the ground that no unabsorbed investment allowance was available for Assessment Year 1990-91 and therefore, set off was incorrectly allowed and that the petitioner had claimed deprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess at later date cannot be stated to be revenue expenditure. The assessee was asked to give the details of interest and financial charges incurred on account of MCB Plant, but the assessee showed its inability to bifurcate the expenditure. From the note given on page 17 of Schedule-6, the cost of building and Plant and machinery used for the production of MCB Plant and the outside facilities was given at 31,11,497/- and 4,13,30,163/-. The total expenditure incurred till 31.03.1991 was stated to be Rs. 15,26,93,282/- including the financial charges and interest. Therefore, proportionately the interest and financial charges pertaining to MCB Plant are computed at Rs. 11,19,830/- while on other plants which had not been commissioned are computed at Rs.26,39,697/-. As the MCB Plant has been put to use, therefore the amount of Rs. 11,19,830/- has become a part of the profit earning process and therefore is allowed. However, an amount of Rs. 26,39,697/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee." 7. The Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 29th October, 1999 has observed as under : "2. While goi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by order dated 26.10.2006 has held as under : "5. We have considered the rival submissions along with the orders of the tax authorities. The CIT(A) has cancelled the assessment in view of the proviso to section 147 and after giving the finding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessee. We have also gone through the computation statement of the assessee available at p.4 of the paper book and noted that the assessee has mentioned in the note that it is entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed investment deposit of Rs. 581468/- and this fact is also apparent from p.9 of the paper book. The fact as to whether the depreciation has been claimed on the for trial production has not been shown in the computation statement, Therefore, we cannot hold HIGH COURT that the assessee has not disclosed truly and fully all particulars necessary for the assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the provision of section 147 will not apply. Even this thing is clear from the papers filed by the assessee by way of paper book consisting of 11 pp. These papers were neither attested nor certified whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts, even the submissions of the assessee and has verified the original order and the paper book of the assessee and after considering all the records placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. To that extent we do not agree with the learned AR that there is a mistake apparent on record in the order of this Tribunal. We however noted that there is a clerical and grammatical mistake in para-5 of the order of the Tribunal and we accordingly rectify the same and direct that para-5 of the order dated 20-10-06 be substituted by the following paragraph from the date when the order was passed: "5. We have considered the rival submissions along with the orders of the tax authorities. The CIT(A) has cancelled the assessment in view of the provisio to section 147 and after giving the finding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessee. We have aiso gone through the computation statement of the assessee available at p.4 of the paper book ano noted that the assessee has mentioned in the note tha....