Decided on November 11,1994



J. Kathuria, Accountant Member - (1.) THE main issue in this appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1991-92 is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing an order under Section 143(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
(2.) Brief and relevant facts in this regard may first be noted. The assessee is a limited company whose accounting period relevant to assessment year 1991-92 ended on 31-3-1991. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 31-12-1991 declaring total income at Rs. 8,59,54,567. The Assessing Officer processed that return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 8,59,70,974. In the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made two small additions of Rs. 14,722 on account of excess claim under Section 80H and of Rs. 1,685 on account of excess deduction under Section 80HHCofthe Act. The assessee-company filed a revised return on 31-3-1992 declaring total income at Rs. 8,44,42,809. This was also processed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a)on 18-5-1992 and the earlier two additions of Rs. 14,722 and Rs. 1,685 were repeated by him. The total income assessed under section I43(1)(a) came to Rs. 8,44,59,216. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 1990-91 on 30-12-1992 on total income of Rs. 4,28,81,010. On the basis of this order for assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer processed the case of the assessee for assessment year 1991-92 under Section 143(1)(b) of the Act. While passing order under Section 143(1)(b) on 5-2-1993, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,64,62,908 to the total income already assessed under Section 143(1)(a) on 18-5-1992 at Rs. 8,44,59,216. The addition of Rs. 1,64,62,908 was made by withdrawing deductions under Section 80HH (Rs. 73,16,848) and under Section 80-1 (Rs. 91,46,060) in respect of Poanta Sahib unit. It may be mentioned that the assessee-company has its head office at Ludhiana where no manufacturing activity is carried on and has two units at Barnala and Poanta Sahib. It may also be mentioned that no such addition by way of withdrawing deduction under Section 80I1H and under Section 80-1 was made though the matter had been processed twice under Section 143(1)(a).
(3.) THE assessee filed application dated 3-3-1993 under Section 154 of the Act challenging the addition of Rs. 1,64,62,908. THE Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's plea vide order dated 26-3-1993 passed under Section 154 of the Act. THE learned CIT(A) also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.