9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 605 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Allowability of deduction u/s.80-IA(4) - Held that - This Court is satisfied that there was no material on record before the Assessing Authority indicating any failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the relevant material before the original Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order u/S.143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2013 and the Assessing Authority had discussed all the relevant facts and evidence and had rightly allowed, albeit partly, the deduction u/S.80-IA(4) of the Act to the assessee and there was no jurisdiction that the Respondent-Assessing Authority to invoke Section 147/148 of the Act for reassessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the present case.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment notice issued under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Eligibility of the petitioner-assessee for deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Reassessment Notice: The petitioner-assessee challenged the reassessment notice for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The notice was based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment because the petitioner-assessee was considered a works contractor and not a developer, thus ineligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The original assessment order passed on 28.03.2013 had allowed the deduction after detailed scrutiny. The reassessment notice was issued after four years from the end of the relevant A.Y., which required the satisfaction of two conditions: failure to fully disclose relevant facts and the original Assessing Authority not considering the allowability of the deduction. The court found that the original assessment order had thoroughly discussed the works undertaken by the petitioner-assessee and had allowed the deduction in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the CBDT Circular No.4/2010. The court emphasized that the reassessment powers under Sections 147/148 must be invoked with caution and based on tangible material indicating escapement of income, which was not evident in this case. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which highlighted the need for "reason to believe" and not merely a "change of opinion" for reassessment. Consequently, the reassessment notice dated 15.03.2016 was quashed. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-IA(4): The petitioner-assessee claimed deductions under Section 80-IA(4) for developing infrastructure facilities, including roads. The original assessment allowed a partial deduction of 68.75%, excluding works related to mere improvements or repairs. The subsequent assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 denied the deduction, considering the petitioner-assessee as a works contractor, which led to the reassessment notice for A.Y. 2010-11. The court examined the relevant provisions and the CBDT Circular No.4/2010, which clarified that widening of existing roads by constructing additional lanes qualifies as a new infrastructure facility. The court rejected the Revenue's contention that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, with retrospective effect, intended to deny deductions for works contracts, including those for developing new roads or widening existing ones. The court noted that the explanation aimed to deny benefits to sub-contractors, not principal contractors engaged in infrastructure development. The court concluded that the original assessment had correctly applied the law and the CBDT Circular, allowing deductions for eligible works. The reassessment notice lacked valid grounds and tangible material to justify reopening the assessment. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the reassessment notice and the reasons recorded for reopening. Conclusion: The court quashed the reassessment notice dated 15.03.2016, finding no failure on the petitioner-assessee's part to fully disclose relevant facts and no jurisdiction for the Assessing Authority to invoke Sections 147/148 for reassessment. The original assessment had rightly allowed deductions under Section 80-IA(4) for eligible infrastructure development works.
|
