9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with dividend counters in the original. Additionally, along with Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB the petitioner had given details of the dividend income, interest income as well as interest expenses for the said year, which included interest expenditure on fixed deposit, interest expenditure on the Society Savings, Employee Savings, etc. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) was very much before AO in the original return accompanied by the audited accounts of the petitioner society. There was, thus, no failure to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment, thus no reason to reopen the assessment - in favour of assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 18592 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Society Cooperative Society Statutory deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) 50,000 87,03,078 NET TAXABLE INCOME NIL" 5. It is this return which the Assessing Officer desires to reopen for which impugned notice came to be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 6. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of such notice. The reasons read as under: "11. Reasons for the belief that the income has escaped assessment: During the assessment for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 it was found that the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the IT Act without first deducting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, it is found from the computation of income filed for the period that the assessee has claimed a deduction u/s 80P(2) (d) of the I.T. Act. However, it is also found that the assessee has not netted the income eligible for deduction with the interest expenses at Rs.1,41,63,494/- by virtue of which its income has been shown at Rs. Nil resulting in a refund of all taxes paid. The assessee has failed to adjust such expenses before claiming the deduction which has led to the escapement of income in proportion to the extent of the interest expenses. 4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the assessee's income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the case needs re-opening u/s 147 of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture incurred by the petitioner for earning interest/dividend income had no correlation with the income for which the petitioner had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The question of netting the income for such purpose, therefore, would not arise. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that the gross income for which deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is available came to more than Rs. 1.81 crores. Since the gross total income of the petitioner was Rs. 87,03,078, such deduction was limited to the amount of gross total income. Therefore, even after netting, as suggested by the Assessing Officer, the tax liability of the petitioner would not change. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr Sudhir Mehta for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner society. There was, thus, no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. The essential requirement to enable the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment and the period of four years is, thus, not satisfied. Therefore, without going into the further question of the very maintainability of the belief of the Assessing Officer that the assessee's income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, we find sufficient justification in the petitioner's questioning the reopening the process only on the ground that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all the material facts. 14. In the result, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
