9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 667 - HC - Income TaxValidity of re-opening of assessment Mere change of opinion Deduction 80IB(10) of the Act Held that - The Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts on the record and has given its findings which are in consonance with law - revenue has not been able to point out any new fact/material or information which came to the knowledge of the AO on the basis of which the assessment was re-opened - the CIT(A) has given a finding of fact based on cogent appreciation of the material on the record that the plot of land on which the Housing Project is undertaken if more than one acre in area - the Assessee is eligible to claim the deductions u/s 80IB(10) of the Act the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Interpretation of change of opinion in re-opening assessment. 3. Timing of notice u/s 148 and the concept of change of opinion. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 148 The High Court examined the appeal challenging the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment was not justified as the Appellant failed to provide any new material or information that prompted the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already determined that the Assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act based on the size of the land where the Housing Project was carried out. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with the law, and the Appellant did not present any grounds to dispute the re-opening of the assessment. Issue 2: Interpretation of change of opinion in re-opening assessment The Appellant raised concerns regarding the Assessing Officer's notice u/s 148, arguing that it was not based on a change of opinion as the original assessment order did not discuss the deduction u/s 80IB(10). The Appellant cited a decision by the Delhi High Court in a similar case to support their argument. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal correctly analyzed the situation and determined that the re-opening of the assessment was not solely due to a change of opinion but rather based on the eligibility of the Assessee for deductions under Section 80IB(10). The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the notice u/s 148 was valid and in line with the provisions of the Act. Issue 3: Timing of notice u/s 148 and the concept of change of opinion The High Court addressed the timing of the notice u/s 148 and the concept of change of opinion as per the amended provision of the Act. The Court noted that the notice was issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no restriction on the Assessing Officer to issue such notice within the specified timeframe. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the notice u/s 148 was valid and not solely based on a change of opinion, as the Assessee met the criteria for claiming deductions under Section 80IB(10). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the re-opening of the assessment was justified, and the Appellant failed to provide any new material to challenge the assessment. The Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the Appeal and directing each party to bear their own costs.
|
