9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o failure on part of the assessee to disclose necessary facts. Reassessment order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover 51341330 176341082 (176586500245418) 176925454 =5,11,71,753 Rs.5,12,42,970/original claim 5,11,71,753 = 71,217/( Excess amount) Thus the eligible amount for deduction u/s. 10B comes of ₹ 51171753/instead of the assessee has claimed the amount of ₹ 5,12,42,970/. 4. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 18.3.2014. In order to do so, he had recorded the following reasons : "In this case the assessee filed return of income for the above assessment year on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of ₹ 98,630/after claiming the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of ₹ 5,12,42,970/in respect of its Ahmedabad unit of ₹ 4,67,32,162/and Cochin unit of ₹ 45,10,808/. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 12/02/2009. Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 02/06/2010 determining the income of the assessee at ₹ 76,72,050/which includes the addition made on account of the following : i) Addition u/s 36(1)(va) on account of employee's contribution to PF and ESI Rs.14,82,993 (ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs.59,19,051 (iii) Disallowance of Surat Flood Victim expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the requirement of being a 100% exportoriented undertaking since it did not enjoy the approval by the Board appointed by the Central Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment before the Commissioner in a revision petition filed under section 264 of the Act. The Revision petition came to be dismissed by the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 9.3.2017. Before the Commissioner also, the assessee had argued that reopening of the assessment itself was bad in law. This was in addition to the assessee's contention that even otherwise deduction under section 10B of the Act could not have been disallowed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions. The notice for reopening was issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. There was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Assessing Officer had no additional or external material to enable him to reopen the assessment. Notice of reop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the order of assessment before the Commissioner in revision petition under section 264 of the Act, has filed the present petition. Nevertheless, the central issue is with respect to the validity of the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer. In this context relevant facts are that the assessment for the assessment year 20072008 was completed after scrutiny. The notice for reopening of such assessment came to be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of assessment year in question. 10. In this context we have noticed that the Assessing Officer in th original assessment proceedings had examined the assessee's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. It is not as if such claim went unnoticed or unscrutinized. He wanted to be specific about the assessee's claim for deduction and therefore, he raised queries in respect to the same in response to which the assessee, as noted, placed number of documents and materials on record. Principally, the assessee pointed out that it has been granted certification by STPI under the Software Technology Parks Scheme. The assessee also supported the claim on merits pointing out that the Development Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
