9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148. 2. Denial of relief under section 80-IA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 and Issuance of Notice under Section 148: The Tribunal examined whether the reopening of the assessment for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 was justified. The reasons for reopening were based on the order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner, which directed the withdrawal of the deduction under section 80-I. The Tribunal noted that there was no independent recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot rely solely on the order under section 263 without providing specific reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal referred to several judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised if it is necessary to correctly assess the tax liability. The Tribunal also cited the Karnataka High Court in Vijayalakshmi Oil Industries v. ITO, which stated that notes prepared by the ITO do not amount to recording of reasons, making the reassessment notice invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was not proper, as the Assessing Officer did not independently record reasons for the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the recorded reasons, such as the mention of section 80-I instead of section 80-IA, and the lack of reference to the disposal of the original returns. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. 2. Denial of Relief under Section 80-IA: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80-IA. The assessee claimed that it had commenced a new industrial undertaking at new premises, manufacturing new articles. The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction, stating that there was no new industrial undertaking and that the business activity remained the same despite the addition of new plant and machinery. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed commenced a new industrial undertaking by investing in new machinery worth Rs. 44,89,892 and manufacturing new articles at the new premises. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that a new industrially recognizable unit that produces articles is not a reconstruction of the old business if there is no transfer of assets from the old business to the new undertaking. The Tribunal also cited Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized that provisions granting incentives for promoting growth should be construed liberally, and restrictions should be construed to advance the objective of the provision. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's new undertaking was a distinct and separate unit, and the relief under section 80-IA could not be denied merely because similar articles were produced at the old premises. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 80-IA, as the new undertaking met the necessary conditions and was not merely a case of shifting the business from the old premises to the new premises. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, holding that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80-IA. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of recording independent reasons for reopening assessments and construed the provisions of section 80-IA liberally to promote industrial growth.
|
