9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment beyond a period of four years is a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the Assessment. So far as the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act is concerned the same was not only fully and truly disclosed but also considered in depth by the Assessing Officer while passing its original order dated 31st May, 2005 under Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Revenue urges the following substantial questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in cacelling the reopened assessment proceedings and holding that there was no valid ground for reopening of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for A. Y. 2003-04. The Respondent-Assessee challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment as well as the proposed denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act before the Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not accept the challenge on both the grounds. By an order dated 31st December, 2009 passed under Section 143(3) read with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat reopening of assessment by issuing notice dated 30th March, 2010 under Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction. Further, it also held on merits that the RespondentAssessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act for the subject Assessment Year. This by inter alia, relying upon decision of this Court in Brahma Associates (supra). 7. We find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Order was not justified; and (ii) on merits, the authorities have held that same stands concluded in favour of the RespondentAssessee by the decision of this Court in Brahma Associates (supra). 8. In view of the settled position of law that reopening notice as in this case can only be sustained if there was a failure to disclose all material facts truly and fully. Moreover, on merits, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
