THEMALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD. Vs. JOSE JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law to be decided in this appeal are as follows:-

(2.) The relevant assessment year is 1999-2000 and the return of income filed by the assessee conceding a total income of Rs.6, 48, 88, 718/-, was proceeded with under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later, the assessment was re-opened and a revised total income of Rs.8, 14, 57, 229/- was determined. The challenge of the assessee before the first appellate authority was on the ground that the Assessing Officer had looked into other issues and found escaped assessment on those issues also; which issues were never recorded as reasons for re-opening of assessment under Section 148(2). The reasons recorded for reassessment were the following as is evident from Annexure-A assessment order.

(3.) The second and fourth issues with respect to income from property in Bombay and the deposits from agents; the assessing authority did not make any addition. The addition with respect to teak plantation was not resisted by the assessee. The claim under Section 80(IA) was revised by the Assessing Officer (AO) after taking into account the gains from business of each of the units and apportioning it proportionally. This was done after calling for the details from the assessee, who had made the apportionment in a different manner. In addition to the above, the AO had also considered two issues with respect to deemed dividend and expenditure with respect to one Mammen Mappillai Hall, which were found to have escaped assessment for reason of not being included in the total income.