2017 (6) TMI 954 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - disallow the assessee s claim of deduction under Section 80IA - Held that - Under similar circumstances, in case of this very assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 2017 (6) TMI 834 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we set aside the notice for reopening as held that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose necessary facts. The documents in the nature of contracts between the government and other agencies were very much part of the record. Further, during the assessment pursuant to the first notice for reopening, the Assessing Officer had examined the claim of deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. It may be that the Assessing Officer had only one of the units of the assessee in mind when such assessment was being framed. Nevertheless nothing prevented him from disallowing such deduction qua other units also if similar situation obtained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to notice of reopening for assessment year 2008-09 based on disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Notice of Reopening: The petitioner challenged the notice of reopening issued by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-09, aiming to disallow the deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act. The notice was challenged on the grounds of lack of clarity in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.

2. Reasons for Reopening: The Assessing Officer cited reasons related to the assessee's failure to fulfill necessary conditions for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. However, the reasons lacked clarity as they did not specify any defects or defaults in the treatment of waste during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer's reference to the assessee not fulfilling conditions for the claim of deduction was considered vague and general, raising doubts on the validity of the reopening.

3. Deficiency in Treatment of Waste: The Assessing Officer's mention of the assessee's failure to properly treat solid waste as a ground for denying the deduction faced multiple hurdles. The defects in waste treatment were identified by an inspecting team years after the assessment year in question, casting doubt on the relevance of such defects to the assessment year 2006-07. The lack of a clear link between the defects and the relevant assessment year rendered the ground for denial of deduction weak and impermissible for a fishing inquiry during the reopening of assessment.

4. Previous Assessments and Eligibility: The judgment highlighted the assessee's previous claims for deduction under Section 80IA and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of such claims after verifying eligibility requirements. The presence of necessary documents, including contracts, during previous assessments indicated that the assessee had complied with the conditions for deduction in the past, further weakening the grounds for disallowance in the present case.

5. Judicial Precedent: The judgment referred to a previous case involving the same assessee for the assessment year 2006-07, where a notice for reopening was set aside due to similar issues. The court emphasized the importance of clear and specific reasons for reopening assessments, especially when challenging deductions claimed under relevant provisions of the Act.

6. Conclusion: The petition challenging the notice of reopening for the assessment year 2008-09 was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside. The court found the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity and failed to establish a valid ground for disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act.