TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that he was invoking his liberty under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in regard to the issue which has been held against the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessment order passed in the case of assessee was barred by limitation. The ld. AR has also filed written submission as follows :- "Please refer to the facts and submissions of the case below: 1. The assessee is engaged in the business of plastic and PVC. The assessee company filed its e-return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,43,78,638/- in response to the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3)/153A of the Act on 28-12-2018 at a total income of Rs. 2,48,33,8901-. 2. Subsequently, on perusal of the assessment records for the subject assessment year, the AO noted that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 2668.98 lakhs as 'Exceptional and Extraordinary items' in the Profit and Loss A/c for the year. It was further noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 108.08 crores from Universal Sompo Insurance Company d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim the same was submitted as follows: Particulars Rs. in crores Remarks Extraordinary Item debited in profit and Loss A/c (a) 26.69 Claim not received from the Insurance Company debited in profit and Loss A/c, being loss incurred due to fire at Dankuni Plant. Less Loss of Profit Policy as per the Insurance Policy not granted by the Insurance company in full and final statement (b) (5) A sum of Rs. 5 crores had already been added back in the computation of income for the current year. Hence, the benefit of deduction of Rs. 5 crores was not claimed by the assessee. Sale of Scrap relating to scrap due to fire (c) (2.18) Included in Sales and accordingly offered for tax in the current year. Loss of Stock due to fire (d) (19.51) The assessee had incurred Loss of Stock due to fire at Rs. 19.51 cr. However, the said claim was not reimbursed by the Insurance Company and hence was treated as Loss in the current year by debiting Profit and Loss A/c as part of the Extraordinary Item. Copy of the estimate worked out by the management enclosed at page 21- 23 of the paper book. Balanced (a-b-c-d) -- The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case and in law, the order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act dated 31- 03-2022 is antedated and barred by limitation since the Online Service of Orders-Letter dated 31-03-2022 was uploaded on the income tax portal of the assessee on 01-04-2022 and the assessment order was served on the assessee at its registered email id only on 16-04-2022. 3. 147 Order not as per law That on the facts of the case and in law, the AO's assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act on the same set of facts available before the preceding learned AO is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible u/s. 147 of the Act. 4. 147 Order not as per law That on the facts of the case and in law there is no allegation of non-disclosure of facts by the assessee in the reasons recorded, no new material or facts was in the possession of the learned AO in reopening a completed assessment and thus the reopening having being done on the basis of material already on record is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible u/s. 147 of the Act. 5. 147 Order not as per law That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act 1961, the reassessment order u/s. 147 of the Act should have been passed within 12 months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served i.e. within 31-03-2022. The assessment order was served on the assessee at its registered email id only on 16-04-2022, thus the assessment order is ante-dated and thus barred by limitation and hence not as per law. Furthermore, the DIN mentioned in the 'Online Service of Orders - Letter' and in the Assessment order are different. However, this ground was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground that although there is some irregularity in service of order but the appellant has not been able to prove conclusively that the assessment order was passed only on 16-04-2022. 9. During appellate proceedings, for grounds 3-4, it was submitted that the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3)/153A of the Act on 28-12-2018 at a total income of Rs. 2,48,33,890/-. Audited Accounts, Tax Audit Report, computation of income, ITR Form were all placed before the then learned AO. In the Profit & Loss Account of the company, under the head "Profit before exceptional and extraordinary items....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f opinion". Hence, I do not find merit in the grounds taken by the appellant. As such, it is rejected." 10. During appellate proceedings, for ground 5, the assessee further submitted that in response to the reasons recorded, the assessee filed its objections on 15-09-2021 reiterating the facts of the case and also submitted that the present proceedings is purely based on a change of opinion, since the said issue of loss of Rs. 26.69 crores was duly explained at the time of original assessment. Such reopening on change of opinion is not permissible in law specially when no new facts have been come to light after completion of original assessment and the reopening is based on material already on record and duly disclosed by the assessee in the course of original assessment. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive shafts India Limited reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19. However, the learned AO summarily disposed of the objections of the assessee. Copy of the order disposing the objections is enclosed at page 42-47. On perusal of the same, it may kindly be noted that objections raised by the assessee were not at all discussed. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.69 crores is allowable as a business loss. The learned CIT(A) perused the submissions and the documents filed by the assessee and allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee on merits held that, "I find merit in the submission of the appellant that the assessee has suffered loss due to fire. Since the claim of loss of stock of Rs. 21.69 crores due to fire was not compensated by the Insurance Company to the assessee. Hence, the same was liable to be claimed as loss in P & LA/c. Therefore, it has rightly claimed the said loss of Rs. 21.69 crores in the P & L A/c. as Exceptional and Extraordinary items which is allowable as a claim as per provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, claim of Exceptional and Extraordinary items of Rs. 21.69 crores by the appellant in the P & L A/c. is allowed and the addition made by the A. O. of Rs. 21.69 crores is deleted. In view of the above facts of the case, it is humbly requested before your goodself to direct the learned A0 to delete the additions made in the assessment order of Rs. 21.69 crores." 12. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A), the Department has filed this present appeal. Rebutting the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred by the revenue, it does not mean that an inference can be drawn that the Respondent- assessee had accepted the findings in part of the final order, that was decided against him. Therefore, when the Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, the Appellant herein (Respondent before the Tribunal) was entitled under law to defend the same and support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. The respondent-assessee had taken the ground of maintainability before Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, in the appeal filed by the revenue, it could rely upon rule 27 and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed cross objections against the findings which were against him. The ITAT, therefore, committed a mistake by not permitting the assessee to support the final order of Commissioner (Appeals), by assailing the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issues that had been decided against him. The appellant- assessee, as a respondent before the ITAT was entitled to agitate the jurisdictional issue relating to the validity of the reassessment proceedings. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the ITAT suffers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect, as if for the words "nine months", the words "twelve months" had been substituted. However, in the present case, attention is drawn to the fact that the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act is though dated 31-03-2022, however the same was not uploaded on the portal on 31- 03-2022. The letter intimating the 'Online Service of Orders - Letter' dated 31-032022 was uploaded on the income tax portal of the assessee only on 01-04-2022. The digital signature of the learned AO was also dated 01-04-2022. Assessment Order was not enclosed with this letter. To substantiate the same, please find enclosed the screen shot of income tax portal of the assessee enclosed at page 1-3 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, it is evident that only the letter of Online Service of Order was actually uploaded on 01-04-2022. Therefore, it is further clear that the assessment order was not really passed on 31.3.2022 and has been antedated to somehow make it seem to be within time. Moreover, the assessment order was served on the assessee at its registered email id only on 16-04-2022, thus the assessment order was clearly ante-dated and thus barred by limita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue did not place this argument and the supporting material before the Tribunal the High Court could have required the Tribunal to ascertain whether P had received earlier notices on behalf of the assessee and prepare a supplemental statement of case but the High Court could not, upon those 'admitted 'facts, have reached the conclusion that the Tribunal findings of fact were perverse. The High Court did not give due importance to the fact that upon the record produced by the revenue before the Tribunal, there was no signed assessment order nor a signed assessment form. An assessment order has to be signed. A valid assessment upon the IIUF for the assessment year 1955-56 was central to the case of the revenue. Since it was unable to establish it, by the production of a signed assessment order for that year, that there was such valid assessment, its case fell and the Tribunal was right in so holding. The High Court was in error in conducting that the findings of the Tribunal on the record were perverse. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and that of the Tribunal was restored." The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-XX Rule-3 of CPC mandates that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered. The signing of an order is thus, not a mere formality, it is a mandatory requirement. It is not a curable procedural defect that can be fixed by signing the order after service of the same on the assessee. If an unsigned order or notice is served on the assessee, the same is invalid. [Para 14] Lastly, the revenue has tried to take shelter under section 292B. The said section cures the procedural defects or omissions. The section does not grant immunity from non-compliance of statutory provisions. Non-signing of an assessment order is not a procedural flaw that can be cured subsequently. The order is complete only when it is signed and released. The date on which the order is signed by the Assessing Officer is the date of order. If revenue's contention is accepted and the Assessing Officer is allowed to sign the assessment order now considering it to be procedural deficiency, still the order would suffer from the defect of limitation and would be without jurisdiction. [Para 17] > The Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med as time barred and beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of assessment is found to be non-est and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, order of assessment is quashed and set aside. Consequences thereof shall follow. Writ petition is allowed accordingly." Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble HC of Bombay in the case of Ramani Suchit Malushte Vs. Union of India & Others in Writ Petition No. - 9331 of 2022 wherein it was held that "unless digital signature is put by the issuing authority on the order, that order will have no effect in the eyes of law." In view of the above facts of the case, it is humbly requested before Your Honours to quash the assessment order since the same is clearly unsigned, ante-dated, barred by limitation and hence not as per law. Appellate Ground 3-4: the AO's assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act on the same set of facts available before the preceding learned AO is a mere change of opinion which is not permissible u/s. 147 of the Act. Now coming to Grounds No.3. and 4 dismissed by the learned CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....already available on records Such reopening on change of opinion is not permissible in law specially when no new facts have been come to light after completion of original assessment and the reopening is based on material already on record and duly disclosed by the us in the course of original assessment. In a plethora of judgments, it has been held that a case of mere change of opinion does not provide justification to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The power of reassessment is different from the power of review. Here, your kind attention is drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) wherein what constitutes disclosure of primary facts was discussed and it was held that, "There can be no doubt that the duly of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. To meet the possible contention that when some account books or other evidence has been produced, there is no duty on the assessee to disclose further facts, which on due diligence, the ITO might hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he duly of the assessee who wants the court to hold that jurisdiction was lacking, to establish that the ITO had no material at all before him for believing that there had been such non-disclosure. To establish this, the assessee had relied on the statements in the assessment orders for the three years in question and on the statement of the ITO in the report made by him to the Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining sanction to initiate proceedings under section 34 and also on his statement on the affidavit on oath in reply to the writ petition. The fact that the assessment orders had already been made did not affect the assessee's right to obtain relief under article 226 In view, however, of the fact that the assessment orders had already been made, it was proper that in addition to an order directing the ITO not to take any action on the basis of the impugned notices, a further order quashing the assessment made be also issued." In this case, the Hon'ble Lordships held that once all primary facts are disclosed before assessing authority, it is for the first Assessing Officer to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn. The second Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present reopening on a mere change of opinion is invalid in law. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the full bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator Of India Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 0001 wherein the entire law on reopening of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and the effect of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was discussed in detail and it was held that, "To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied, viz., (1) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; and (2) he must also have a reason to believe that such escapement occurred by reason of either (a) omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under section 139; or (b) omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. The aforementioned requirements of law must be held to be conditions precedent for invoking jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147. Both the conditions aforementioned are cumulative. It is also a well-settled pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(SC) and it was held that, "The concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Acts, 1987 and 1989. After the amendment, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion. The concept of "change of opinion" must be treated as an in-built test to check the abuse of power. Hence after April 1, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason must have a link with the formation of the belief" Further reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents: ITO vs TechSpan India (P.) Ltd [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) The language of section 147 makes it clear that the Assessing Officer certainly has the power to re-assess any income which has escaped assessment for any assessment year subject to the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal over the Assessing Officer making the original assessment and it is not open to the Assessing Officer ordering reassessment to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer who made the original assessment." Thus, the present reopening on the basis of change of opinion is not sustainable in law and thus the present reopening is void ab-initio. Appellate Ground No. 5: Objections not disposed of by the learned AO. It is humbly submitted that in response to the reasons recorded, the assessee filed its objections on 15-09-2021. In the objections the assessee stated the facts of the case and also submitted that the present proceedings is purely based on a change of opinion, since the said issue of loss of Rs. 26.69 crores was duly explained at the time of original assessment. Such reopening on change of opinion is not permissible in law specially when no new facts have been come to light after completion of original assessment and the reopening is based on material already on record and duly disclosed by the assessee in the course of original assessment. Copy of the objections is enclosed at page 26-33 of the paper book. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble High Court. The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01-02-2024 [20241 159 taxmann.com 184 (SC), copy enclosed. • The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. reported in [2016] 236 Taxman 494 (Del) held the following: 1. "The Court is of the considered view that after having correctly understood the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) as mandatorily requiring the AO to comply with the procedure laid down therein and to dispose of the objections to the reopening order with a speaking order, the CIT (A) committed an error in not quashing the reopening order and the consequent assessment. 7. The CIT (A) in the order dated 281h January 2011 proceeded to examine on merits the challenge by the Assessee (in Ground No. 4) to the order of the AO disallowing the management service i.e. The CIT (A) agreed with the submissions of the Assessee and held that in view of the 'Nil' withholding certificate issued by the DDIT Circle 1 (2) of the International Tax Division in favour of the Assessee in terms of the Double Taxation Avoidance A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The above entry made in the immediately preceding year i.e FY 2014-15 duly evidences that Purchases A/c was reduced by Rs. 19.51 crores and consequently closing stock of that year was reduced. Credit of Purchases A/c in the Profit and Loss A/c in the immediately preceding year means that the assessee has reduced Purchases in FY 2014-15 and hence claimed less deduction of Rs. 19.51 crores. Thus, adding the sum of Rs. 19.51 will tantamount to double addition since the sum of Rs. 19.51 crores was duly credited in the Profit and Loss A/c in FY 2014-15. Also find enclosed with the submissions, the statement showing the reconciliation of raw materials and finished goods wherein it is evident that there was loss of raw materials due to fire of 1354 MT amounting to Rs. 19.51 crores. The same was also checked and certified by a practicing Chartered Accountant vide his certificate dated 12-11-2014, refer page 21-23 of the paper book. Your kind attention is also invited to the audited Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss A/c and the relevant Schedules of FY 2014-15 which evidences that the loss of stock due to fire of Rs. 19.51 crores was adjusted with the closing stock in F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received from the AO. The revenue has also filed the letter of online service of the order which admittedly is the same as the letter produced by the assessee signed on Friday 1st April, 2022 at 6.25 PM. Ld.CIT-DR also placed before us the copy of signed assessment order, the last two pages along with demand notice and the computation sheet, which read as follows :- 13. All contain the physical signature of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected assessee's claim in respect of time barring of the assessment. It was the prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) rejecting the claim of time barring, the assessment order be upheld. It was the submission that the assessee has not filed any appeal against the said finding of the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that on merits in the revenue's appeal the assessee had incurred a loss of devastating fire at the factory of the assessee and the closing stock loss was to an extent of Rs. 134.77 crores, an insurance claim had been made and the insurance had settled the claim of the assessee at Rs. 108.08 crores. There was a difference of Rs. 26.69 crores. It was the submission that out of Rs. 26.69 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been submitted by the revenue also in its paper book clearly shows that the same has been digitally signed on Friday 1st April, 2022 at 6.25 PM. The said letter dated 31.03.2022 which has been sent on Friday 1st April, 2022 at 6.25 PM having been digitally signed, we failed to understand as to why the assessment order and the demand notice and the computation of the total income now contains the physical signature of the ld. Assessing Officer. Admittedly, below each of the signature which is specifically mentioned that "in the case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page". There is no digital signature in regard to the assessment order, demand notice or the computation of income in either the copy provided to the assessee nor is it available in the assessment order, copies which have been submitted before the Bench by the revenue but the letter dated 31.03.2022 mentioning online service of the order contains digital signature and even that unfortunately is of Friday 1st April, 2022 at 6.25 PM. This being so, at the outset, we are of the view that the assessment order as passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2022 is, prima ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Page 1 Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No./Excise Inv.No. Debit Credit 31-3-2015 To Fixed Assets Journal JN002019 1,10,28,54,578.00 BEING THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVABLE & LOSS OF ASSETS DUE TO FIRE ENTRY PASSED DUE TO FIRE FACTORY. IN To PURCHASE Journal JN002824 19,50,95,227.00 BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE ON FIRE ACCOUNT OF STOCK BURNT IN To LOSS OF PROFIT Journal JN002825 5,00,00,000.00 BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOP CLAIM. 1,34,77,49,805.00 By Closing Balance 1,34,77,49,805.00 1,34,77,49,805.00 1,34,77,49,805.00 BEING THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVABLE & LOSS OF ASSETS DUE TO FIRE ENTRY PASSED DUE TO FIRE FACTORY. FIRE For Kkalpana Industries (India) Limited N 0 director Document 2 4) Kkalpana Industries (India) Ltd. Statement showing details of Raw marerial Reconcilation - For The FY 2014-15 Particulars Opening Qty (In MT) Opening Value (In Lacs) Purchase Qty (in MT) Purchase Value (In lacs) Loss due to fire Qty (In MT) Loss due to fire Value (in Lacs) Closing Qty (In MT) Closing Value (in Lacs) Consumpt ion Qty (In MT) Consumpt ion Value (in Lacs) 4,535.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding related to: Of Other PAN/TAN Excel Download a For your information (4) For your Action (14) AT: 2016-17 * Sort By Proe Created Dute Desc X Reset Proceeding Name : Rectification Proceeding u/s 154 r.w.s 147 www Assessment Year : 2016-17 Proceeding Limitation Date : 11-Jan-2024 Proceeding Closure Date : . Financial Year : 2015-16 Proceeding Closure Order : 256112447 PAN AABCK2239D 20-Feb-2024 Closed File Appeal Name of Assessee KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED Download Closure Order View Netices/Orders (1) Proceeding Name : Rectification Proceeding u/s 154 r.w.s 147 Now Assessment Year : 2016-17 Proceeding Limitation Date : 5-Jul-2022 Proceeding Closure Date : 05-Jul-2022 Financial Year : 2015-16 Proceeding Closure Order : 226567246 PAN AABCK2239D Proceeding Status Closed File Appeal Download Closure Order Name of Assessee KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED View Notices/Orders (1) Proceeding Name : Assessment Proceeding u/s 147 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Proceeding Limitation Date : 31-Mar-2022 Proceeding Closure Date : 31-Mar-2022 Financial Year : 2015-16 Proceeding Closure Order : 225321727 PAN A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee. Thus the loss claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the financial year 2015-16 as loss on assets destroyed by fire is found to be bogus and hence such alleged claim of loss due to fire is nothing but a bogus claim by the assessee and has been reduced by making a false claim to reduce the income. A sum of Rs.5 crores had already been added back in the computation of income for the F.Y. 2015-16.Hence the loss claim as extraordinary items by the assessee of Rs. 21,68,98,000(26,68,98,000- 50000000) is disallowed and added to the total income as business income. [Addition : Disallowance of extraordinary loss claim Rs. 21,68,98,000] Penalty initiated separately u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act,1961 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. 6. Having regard to the above observations, the total income of the assessee company is re-computed as under: Assessed income u/s. 153A/143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 28.12.2018 RS. 2,48,33,890/- Less : Relief allowed u/s 154/251/254/264 Rs. 0 Add : Addition on account of disallowance of extraordinary loss claim Rs. 21,68,98,000/- Total income assessed Rs. 24,17,31,890/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax Act, 1961, to the CIT(A), Kolkata- 20 within thirty days of the receipt of this notice, in Form No. 35, duly stamped and verified as laid down in that form. PRAVEEN DAS CHOWDHURY CENTRAL CIR 1(4), KOLKATA (In case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page) Document 9 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR 1(4), KOLKATA 90 Computation Sheet PAN AABCK2239D Assessment Year 2016-17 Name KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED Address 2B ,PRETORIA STREET PRETORIA STREET KOLKATA 700071 ,West Bengal India Residential Status Resident DIN & Document Number ITBA/AST/S/116/2021- 22/1042403648(1) Order Section 147 Order Date 31/03/2022 SI. No. Reporting Heads Amount as per Current Order (in Rs.) HEADS OF INCOME 1. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 45,500 2. INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 7,15,92,290 3. INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS 0 4. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 23,59,98,590 5. INTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS O 6. TOTAL(AFTER INTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENT) 6=(1+2+3+4)-5 30,76,36,380 7. LOSSES OF CURRENT YEAR SETOFF AGAINST 6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UNT 52= (49+50+51) 12,05,38,916 53. REFUND ALREADY ISSUED (incl. interest u/s 244A and interest u/s 244A(1A) if any) -26,972 54. BALANCE AMOUNT PAYABLE/REFUNDABLE (incl. provisional Interest u/s 244A till current order and interest u/s 244A(1A) - if any) 54 = (52-53) 12,05,65,888 55. INTEREST U/S 220(2) CHARGED (In Rs.) 0 56 AMOUNT PAYABLE/REFUNDABLE 56=(54+55) 12,05,65,888 57. DEMAND IDENTIFICATION NO AGAINST ORIGINAL DEMAND 2021201637005432025C 58. DEMAND IDENTIFICATION NO AGAINST INTEREST U/S 220(2) NA 59. DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX (DDT) COMPUTATION SI. No. Reporting Heads As per Current Order DDT 1. DDT PAYABLE U/S 1150 0 2. SURCHARGE ON DDT 0 3. EDUCATION + SECONDARY & HIGHER EDUCATION CESS 0 4 TOTAL DDT PAYABLE 0 5. |INTEREST U/S 115P 0 6. TOTAL DDT LIABILITY 0 7. TAX AND INTEREST PAID 0 8. DDT AMOUNT PAYABLE/REFUNDABLE (6-7) 0 9. INTEREST U/S 244A (till order date or accounting closure date) 0 10. TOTAL DDT AMOUNT PAYABLE/REFUNDABLE (8+9) 0 11. DDT REFUND ALREADY ISSUED 0 Document 12 BALANCE DDT AMOUNT PAYABLE/REFUNDABLE(10-11) 60. DETAILS OF TAX ON DISTRIBUTED INCOME OF A DOMESTIC COMPANY ON BUY BACK OF SHA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s claim Rs. 21,68,98,000] Penalty initiated separately u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. 6. Having regard to the above observations, the total income of the assessee company is re-computer as under: Assessed income u/s. 153A/143(3) of the I.T.Act. 1961 dated 28.12.2018 Rs. 2,48.33,890/- Less Relief allowed u/s 154/251/254/264 Rs. O Add : Addition on account of disallowance of extraordinary loss claim Rs. 21,68,98,000/- Total income assessed Rs. 24,17,31,890/- Assessed MAT income u/s. 153A/143(3) off the I. T.Ac., 1961 dated 28. 12.2018 17,03,12.929/- Assessed income u/s. 153A/143(3) of the I.T.Act. 1961 dated 28.12.2018 : Addition on account of disallowance of extraordinary loss claim 7. Assessed under section 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. Credit for prepaid taxes are given. Demand notice along with a copy of the Assessment Order, Income Tax computation sheet generated from system is issued to the assessee. Document 14 AABCK2239D- KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED A.Y. 2016-17 ITBAJAST/S/147/2021-22/1042403487(1) 31/3/2022 PRAVEEN DAS CHOWDHURY CENTRAL CIR 1(4), KOLKATA....