Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 3302 2012 SLD 3302 (2012) 345 ITR 414
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 1379 & 1410 OF 2009 FEBRUARY 29, 2012
SANJIV KHANNA AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.
Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Appellant. C.S. Aggarwal and Rajiv Saxena for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Jagson International Ltd.*

Law:

Section:

Section 147, read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased plant and machinery after expiry of half of year and claimed depreciation at rate of 25 per cent, on which depreciation at rate of 12.5 per cent was actually admissible - Accordingly, he initiated reassessment proceedings and made addition to assessee's income - However, Tribunal merely held that reasons recorded by Assessing Officer did not show that any fresh information had come to its possession in respect of date of purchase of plant and machinery so as to fix rate of depreciation and, therefore, reopening was not justified - Whether order passed by Tribunal was cryptic and did not deal with issues raised with reference to reopening, and, therefore, matter was to be remanded to Tribunal to decide issue afresh - Held, yes [Matter remanded] FACTS The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on the ground that assessee had claimed excess depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent on new plant and machinery purchased after September 2000, on which half rate of stipulated depreciation was admissible. Accordingly, he made addition to assessee's income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal held that exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 148 was non est and invalid. On further appeal by the revenue: HELD The Tribunal merely held that reasons recorded for reopening did not show any fresh information which came to the possession of the Assessing Officer to show that new plant and machinery had been purchased by the assessee after September 2000 on which depreciation has been claimed. This was the only discussion by the Tribunal on the said aspect. The reason recorded by the Tribunal did not meet the requirements of law. The order passed by the Tribunal was cryptic and did not deal with the contentions and the issues raised with reference to the reopening under section 147. The 'reasons to believe' have to be tested on the facts/material when the reasons are…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492