TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der disposing off the objections of the Appellant/petitioner dated 15.02.2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 passed by the third respondent. 3. The appellant company is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), amino acids and their intermediates, primarily to the customers in the International markets. The appellant company is assessed to income tax under the jurisdiction of the First Respondent. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 2013-2014, the appellant had issued credit notes aggregating to Rs. 11,96,04,791/- and claimed the same amount as deduction in the original return of income filed by it. Subsequently, the Authorized Dealer(AD) namely Indian Bank accepted the reduction in the invoice value of exports vide letter dated 26.12.2013 allowing the setoff of Rs. 5,41,29,351/- for the AY 2013-14 and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,57,63,274/- was allowed as setoff for the AY 2014-15 as against Rs. 11,98,92,625/-. 4. The appellant revised its return of income for the AY 2013-2014 on 15.12.2014 offering an additional income of Rs. 6,54,75,440/- to the income under the heading "Computation of Income" from "Business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to appreciate the essential conditions of section 147, namely "escapement of income" was not satisfied in the current fact pattern. Section 147 of the Act clearly brings out that no notice under the said section can be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the provision of the Section 139 or 142(1) or 148 or there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truely all material facts which are necessary for the assessment. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that in the present case, the complete facts with respect to the reduction in invoice value of the export sales and the corresponding credit as part of the head 'other income,' which is the subject matter of reassessment for the AY 2014-15 was explained to the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, by not just one submission but three specific submissions dated 25.08. 2016, 23.09.2016 as well as 01.11.2016 during the course of the original assessment proceedings conducted as per the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 and the appellant filed the objection against the reasons recorded for the reopening of assessment on 20.09.2021. The Assessing Officer disposed of the objections on 15.02.2022. 17. The Writ Court, had rightly held that claim for deduction for a sum of Rs. 6,57,63,274 based on the letter dated 26.12.2013 of the Authorised dealer and for a further sum of Rs. 6,54,75,440/- in the same AY 2014-15 is impermissible. 18. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that subsequent to the order passed in Writ Petition, the Assessing officer took up the reassessment proceedings and completed on 10.01.2024 and has decided the issue in Para No.10 to 14 which is extracted below: "10. Assessee's contention and position was found untenable as it is on record that net effect of credit note amounting to Rs. 11,96,04,791/- i.e. totaling of Rs. 5,41,29,351/- and Rs. 6,54,75,440/- was already reduced from the invoice of A.Y 2013-14 itself and that in the Financial Statement dated 18.09.2014, for the Financial Year 2013-14, in the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Cash Flow Statement and Notes of Financial Statement for year ended March 31,2014, the petitioner has claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the above, the counsel for the respondents-Income Tax department humbly submit that the Revenue has conclusively proved that the Appellant- Assessee has made a double claim which is not permissible and that the Appellant- Assessee has made a wrong claim and has also not furnished full and true disclosure at the time of original assessment proceedings. 19. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proviso to section 147 of the Act clearly will not come to the rescue of the Appellant-Assessee in view of the fact that the Assessee has not furnished full and true particulars which are necessary for making the assessment. 20. The learned Standing counsel would further point out that the Assessing Officer has correctly reopened the assessment and the Writ Court in the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, has correctly upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Consequent to the reopened assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 10.1.2024, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] on 12.02.2024. Since the assessee has availed the alternate remedy, the assessee may not be permitted to continue the ....