The ACIT, 1(2), Bhopal V. M/s Fujitsu Optel Ltd., Bhopal

ITA 397/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 39722714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAVE SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: YESHWANT SHARMA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 32; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 397 AND 398/IND/2010 A.YS. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2) BHOPAL ... APPELLANT VS FUJISTU OPTEL LIMITED MANDIDEEP BHOPAL PAN AAACF-2334B ... RESPONDENT CO NOS. 19 AND 20/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 397 AND 398/IND/2010) A.YS. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 FUJISTU OPTEL LIMITED MANDIDEEP BHOPAL ... OBJECTOR VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2) BHOPAL ... RESPONDENT 2 REVENUE BY : SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT/DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.1.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2 010 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPA L, ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASSUME VALID JURISDICTION U/S 147 AND THE NOTICES U/S 148 WERE BAD IN LAW, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT BECAME INVALID. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJ ECTIONS ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE BOOK PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE MAT LIABILITY PAID THEREON U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AND THU S THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT BUSINESS LOSS HAD PRIORITY OVER BROUGHT FORWARD UNA BSORBED 3 DEPRECIATION IN THE MATTER OF SET OFF WHILE WORKING THE MAT LIABILITY. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LEARNED CIT DR, SHRI KESHAV SAXENA, ADVANCED VERY FORCEFUL ARGUMENTS BY SUBMITTING THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 1994 THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AND SINCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THERE IS N O LOSS IT HAS TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE LOSS SHOULD BE NIL U/S 115JB AND T HIS CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG AS INCOME ESCA PED TAXATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2.22 CRORES. PLEA WAS A LSO RAISED THAT IT IS A OVER-RIDING SECTION, THEREFORE, THE CO NCLUSION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNJ USTIFIED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAL LIMITED; 285 ITR 1 (AAR). THE THRUST OF ASSERTION IS THAT A WRONG CALCULATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK BY POINT ING OUT THAT THE REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,22,30,625/- BY THE ASSESSEE IS OFF-SHOOT OF WRONG CALCULATION. PLEA W AS ALSO RAISED THAT NO DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSE SSMENT 4 ORDER WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT AS THE SAME WAS STRAIGHT WAY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS THERE IS A FALSITY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THEN REA SSESSMENT CAN BE DONE AS THERE IS NO TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF FACTS FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) SHRIKRISHNA PVT. LTD. ETC. V.ITO AND OTHERS221 ITR 538 (SC) (II) CIT V. UTTAMCHAND NAHAR; 295 ITR 403 (RAJ) (III) CIT VS. P.V.S. BEEDIES PVT. LTD.; 237 ITR 13 (SC) (IV) DR. AMINS PATHOLOGY LABORATORY VS. JCIT; 252 ITR 673 (BOM) (V) WCI (MADRAS) (P) LTD. V. ACIT; 324 ITR 181 (MAD .) THE LEARNED CIT DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 72(2) AND SECTION 32 OF THE ACT BY SUBMITTING THAT THESE ARE GENERAL PROVISIONS WHEREAS SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT IS A SP ECIAL PROVISION, THEREFORE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS OVERRIDES THE GENERAL PROVISION. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT SECTION 143(III) IS DIRECT LY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AS THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ITSELF HAS NOT GONE INTO THE C ALCULATION AS 5 REQUIRED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. AGAIN IT WAS ASSERT ED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF POINTED OUT FROM T HE TABLE ITSELF, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PARA 2 (PAGE 8) IS CONTRARY TO FAC TS. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN REASONS WERE RECORDED FROM THE SAME TABLE BY SUBMIT TING THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE VALID. 2.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA, TRIED TO DISLODGE THE ASSERTI ON OF THE LEARNED CIT DR BY SUBMITTING THAT THE CALCULATION M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON FACTS, THEREFORE, TRUE BY INVI TING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02) BY ASSERTING THAT CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIATION H AS TO BE ADDED BACK BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD PROFITS WHICH W ILL REDUCE THE DEPRECIATION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE REDUCED R S. 7,29,50,450/-. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO P AGE 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A STRONG PLEA WAS RAISED BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL THAT THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE ARE HAVIN G NO BEARING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE T HRUST OF THE 6 ARGUMENTS IS IN SUPPORT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. REL IANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN JCIT V. ROLTA INDIA LIMITED (2011) 330 ITR 470. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A JOINT VENTURE WITH GOVERNMENT OF MADH YA PRADESH, DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT NIL IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2001 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) UNDER THE NORM AL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE BOOK PROFIT AT RS.1,3 3,69,061/- WAS CALCULATED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEREFORE, REQUIRED NOTICES WERE ISSU ED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.3 .2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 9 TH APRIL, 2007 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS FOR AS SESSMENT WERE ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE REASON S RECORDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER: - 7 REASONS LEADING TO THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2001 SHOWING TAXABLE BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 1,33,69,061/- UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. ASSESSMENTS OF THE ABOVE YEAR WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.3.2004 ON THE RETURNED BOOK PROFIT. HOWEVER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, THE FOLLOWING POSITION WAS EMERGED :- A.Y B/F LOSS UNAB. DEPN. NET CARRIED OVER LOSS FOR 115JB (AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE) CARRIED OVER OVER UAD FOR 115JB (AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE) 1995-96 (-)12803191 (-)704435 (-)13507626 (-)128031 91 (-)704435 1996-97 (-)53514656 (-)1227733 (-)54742389 (-)66317 847 (-)1932168 1997-98 (-)9774649 (-)6929798 (+)2844851 (-)6347299 6 (-)1932168 1998-99 (-)16621425 (-)12045447 (-)28666572 (-)8009 4421 (-)13977515 1999-00 (+)19481216 (-)12337245 (+)7143971 (-)72950 450 (-)13977615 2000-01 (+)5147791 (-)13400801 (-)8253010 (-)729504 50 (-)22230625 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE BOOK PROFIT B Y THE AMOUNT OF RS.22230625/- WHICH WAS LOWER OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, F OR THE PURPOSE OF MAT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADJUSTED THE POSIT IVE BOOK PROFIT, EARNED IN A.Y. 1997-98 & 1999-2000 FRO M THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, WHEREAS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION. 115JB OF THEACT, THE SAME WA S REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED FROM THE LOWER OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGL Y THE POSITION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- 8 ASSTT. YEAR B/F LOSS UNAB. DEPN. NET CARRIED OVER LOSS FOR 115JB (AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE) CARRIED OVER UAD FOR 115JB (AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE) 1995-96 (-)12803191 (-)704435 (-)13507626 (-)128031 91 (-)704435 1996-97 (-)53514656 (-)1227733 (-)54742389 (-)66317 847 (-)1932168 1997-98 (-)9774649 (-)6929798 (+)2844851 (-)6540516 5 NIL 1998-99 (-)16621425 (-)12045447 (-)28666572 (-)8202 6590 (-)12045447 1999-00 (+)19481216 (-)12337245 (+)7143971 (-)82026 590 (-)4901476 2000-01 (+)5147791 (-)13400801 (-)8253010 (-)820265 90 (-)13154486 ACCORDINGLY, BOOK PROFIT FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 SHOUL D HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF UAD OF RS.13154486/- AND NOT RS.22230625 AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE TAXABLE BOOK PROFIT AND HENCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.9076139/- (RS. 22230625 RS. 13154486) SIMILAR REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR A.Y. 2002-03. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER IN THE REASON S RECORDED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF TH E APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELA TING TO THE CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFITS FOR SECTION 115J B OF THE ACT. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE A.O. HAD ACCEPTED THE CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFITS A S DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISS UE IN DETAIL. THUS, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT REGARDING FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS WAS ABSENT AND THUS TH E ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT VALIDLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 147 AND THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & 2002- 9 03 WERE INVALID. HENCE, THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) FOR A.YS. 2001-02 & 2002-03 ARE ANNULLED. 3.10 THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE NOTICES U /S 148 WERE ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 09.04.2007 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR EYARS FROM END OF THE A.YS. 2001 - 02 AND 2002-03 AND IN THE REASONS RECORDED THERE IS NO ALLEGATION REGARDING FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAD NOT ASSUMED VALID JURISDICTION U/S 147 AND THE NOTICES U/S 148 WERE BAD IN LAW. THUS, THE CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 147/143(3) FOR A.Y. 2001-02 & A.Y. 2002-03 ALSO BECOME INVALID AND ARE, THEREFORE, ANNULLED. 4. THE WHOLE THRUST OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IF THERE IS FALSITY IN THE RETURN, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN REASSESSMENT CAN BE DONE AS THER E IS NO TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF FACTS BY THE ASSESSE E FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON CERTAIN DECISIONS WH ICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA NO.2 OF THIS ORDER. IN THE CASE OF SHRIKRISHNA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA), ON THE ISSUE OF FAILURE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT T HAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE FA CTS AND WHEN SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO TR UE 10 DISCLOSURE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD TO BE VALIDLY INITIATED. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN I N THE CASE OF UTTAMCHAND NAHAR (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF P VS BEEDIES (P) LIMITED (SUPRA) REOPENING OF THE CASE, ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL ERROR POINTED OUT BY INTERNAL AUDI T PARTY, WAS HELD TO BE PERMISSIBLE. IN THE CASE OF DR. AMIN S PATHOLOGY LABORATORY, IT WAS HELD THAT FOR MAKING REASSESSMENT, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FAILURE TO DIS CLOSE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND UNDER T HE FACTS OF THAT CASE MERE PRODUCTION OF BALANCE-SHEET OR ACCOUNT BOOKS WAS HELD TO BE NOT AMOUNTING TO FULLY DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF WCI (M ADRAS) (P) LTD. (SUPRA). WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH T HE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THESE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. HOWEVE R, QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FULLY DISCLOSE D THE MATERIAL FACTS VIS.A.VIS APPLICABILITY OF THESE JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT NIL UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 11 AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED ON 31.10.2001 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.2.2008 AND NOTICES U/S 148 IN BOTH THE APPEALS W ERE ISSUED ON 9.4.2007. THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT EVEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND FAULT FROM THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEE N REPRODUCED (IN THE FORM OF TABLE) IN AFORESAID PARA NO. 3. THE OPINION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS THA T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE BOOK PROFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,54,486/- AND NOT RS.2,22,30,625/- AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING INTO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.90,76,139/-. SIMILAR REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. HOWEVER, IF THE FACTS DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN ARE ANALYSED , WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM U/S 115JB OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO 12 QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE BOOK PROFIT BY THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,23,0625/- WHICH IS THE LOWER OF BROUGHT FORWA RDED LOSS AND ABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF M AT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE ADJUSTED THE POSITIVE BOOK PROFIT EARNED DURING THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1997-98 AND 1990-2000 FROM THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS ES IN WHICH WE FIND NO INFIRMITY. 5. WE ALSO FIND THAT SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 115 JB SPECIFIES THAT SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS S ECTION, ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO EVE RY ASSESSEE BEING A COMPANY MENTIONED IN THAT SECTION. IN OTHER WORDS, EXCEPT FOR SUBSTITUTION OF TAX PAYABLE UNDER THE PROVISION AND THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS, ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX INCLUDING TH E PROVISION RELATING TO CHARGE, DEFINITIONS, RECOVERI ES, PAYMENT ASSESSMENT, ETC. WOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE 13 CASE OF JCIT VS. ROLTA INDIA LIMITED; 330 ITR 470(S C) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE FIND THA T WHILE WORKING OUT THE BOOK PROFIT, THE ASSESSEE RED UCED THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS LOWER OUT OF THE TWO I.E. BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW O F THIS FACTUAL FINDING IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO ESC APEMENT OF INCOME, THEREFORE, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 6. SO FAR AS REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ISSUANCE O F NOTICE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FRO M THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONCERNED, W E FIND THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY A PPLICABLE IN THESE CASES AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THERE IS NO FAI LURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S 139 O R TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR 14 ASSESSMENT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND AS PER SUB-SECT ION (III) OF SECTION 148 THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPO SES OF SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE FAC TS REGARDING CARRY FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN TRULY AND F ULLY DISCLOSED WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE INFORMATION RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE (WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD) WAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED BY THE AO WHILE RECORDING T HE REASONS. EVEN IN THE RECORDED REASONS, THERE IS NO WHISPER THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 9.4.2007, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICT ION 15 U/S 147/148 IS ALSO UNJUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THESE F ACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE CIT(A). SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THESE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE WE HAVE AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A), THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30.1..12.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE