TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following issues: i. Validity of reopening of assessment; ii. Disallowance of depreciation on Building and Machinery; iii. Levy of interest u/s.234D of the Act; 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of nickel catalyst, activated alloy catalyst etc. The original assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2008. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 03-04-2012. The reason given by the AO for reopening of assessment was that the depreciation/additional depreciation claimed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, had raised queries on the very same issues on which the present reopening of the assessment was done by the AO. The assessee, during the course of original assessment proceedings, has given replies to each of those issues. After that, the AO completed the original assessment proceeding after satisfying himself over the replies given by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld.AR contended that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts relating to assessment. Further, the AO has only changed his opinion on the very same facts, which were considered by him in the original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned reopening is against the provisions of 1st proviso ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31.03.2006. This is evident from the following facts. 1) The executive engineer, MIDC, Dombivil has accorded completion certificate of the building on 03.04.2006. 2) In the statement recorded at the time of survey under sec 133A undertaken in the case of the assessee on 22.11.2007, Shri Rajendra Dhirendra Gunjikar, Sr.Production Manager, has stated that civil construction of new unit of Nickel recovery was completed in July 2006. He has also stated that actual trial production was started In August 2006. 3) In the statement recorded at the time of survey under sec133A undertaken in the case of the assessee on 22.11.2007, Shri Nitin Juttlan, General Manager has stated that the completion of Installation of machine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar in order to come to form the opinion that the building, plant and machinery were not put to use before 31.3.2006 and hence the depreciation/additional depreciation claimed by the assessee was wrongly allowed. 8. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO the very same documents viz., the completion certificate given by MIDC and the statements given by two employees, were very much available before the AO in the original assessment proceedings and he had raised specific queries on the basis of very same documents. We notice that the above queries were clarified by the assessee to the AO, vide its letter Ref.: MCPL/IT/08-09/497 dated 17th November, 2008. The copy of said letter is placed at pages 100 to 105 of paper book. Following replies have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same question was put to Mr.Rajendra Gunjikar and to our CMD Mr Shantilal Vadalia. You may refer to statements of Mr.Shantilal Vadalia recorded on the date of Survey in question No.11 and 12 wherein Mr.Shantilal Vadalia specifically clarified about Mr.Rajendra Gunjikar's statements and we quote the relevant portion as under: "Our Senior Production Manager was posted with W-62, MIDC, Phase -II unit and he was not responsible for the Project and the installation and the trial production details of F-1/2 plant until he was transferred". "To the best of my knowledge, the management had not delegated any Project related responsibility to Mr.Rajendra Gunjikar. He was the sold person in W-62 of managerial cadre. So it was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year" We have seen earlier that the assessee, during the course of original assessment proceedings, had specifically clarified the queries of the AO on the completion certificate issued by MIDC and also on the statements given by two of its employees. The AO had also passed the original assessment order, after considering those replies only. We notice that the AO has reopened the assessment, which was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Even though the AO mentions in the reasons for reopening of assessment that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly a....