9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim u/s 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by the Assessing Authority at the time of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and therefore after the expiry of 4 years in 2010, the impugned notice u/s 147/148 for AY 2003-04 issued on 31.03.2010 was not a valid initiation of the re-assessment proceedings. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the impugned re-assessment proceeding and there is no merit in the present appeal filed by Revenue. - writ appeal by Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. 6.He drew our attention to the original Assessment Order dated 20.12.2005 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Authority and submitted that the details about all the projects were separately given at the time of original assessment proceedings and only the proportionate claim was made by the Assessee under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, being conscious of the fact that the residential units below 1500 sq. ft. only were eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. He therefore submitted that merely on a change of opinion, the Assessing Authority could not seek to disallow such deduction in respect of Vajra F Block completed by the assessee and that for the purpose of excluding the limitation of 4 years prescribed in the 1st proviso to Section 147 of the Act, he could not have issued the impugned notice under Section 147/148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2003-04 and consequently, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the Assessee and the present writ appeal filed by the Union of India/Revenue Department is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7.Having regard to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Original assessment was completed after full scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has said in the Assessment Order that details were called for and scrutinized. In fact the Vajra "F" Block is also clearly mentioned in the assessment order. The eligible deduction under section 80-IB(1) has been worked out by the Assessing Officer and forms part of the assessment order as Annexure. This shows that he has applied his mind to the claim made and completed the assessment. This also shows that all primary facts required have been furnished by us. In fact in the working the Assessing Officer has clearly worked out the deduction admissible proportionately for eligible flats. In working out the sale value of eligible flats he has excluded the sale value of flats exceeding the 1500 sq. ft. This would show that all primary facts were available while making the original assessment. Merely adding a sentence in the reasons recorded and communicated that there is a clear cut failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials without disclosing the nature of failure would not be enough for initiating reassessment. The reference o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end of relevant assessment year is liable to be quashed as the Assessing Authority would lack the jurisdiction to issue any such re-assessment notice. 12.We do not find any such failure on the part of the Assessee, in the present case. He disclosed fully and truly all the relevant facts before the Assessing Authority in the Return filed by him or at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessee not only disclosed all the Building Projects undertaken by him, but also consciously claimed only a proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, for Vajra F Building to the extent of eligible Residential Units below 1500 sq. ft. each. If the Assessee had anything to hide or make a wrong claim, then proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act would not have been claimed by him. The Assessing Authority, while passing the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, had all the powers to call for any further details, if he chose to do so. But, on the contrary, it appears that all the details, were called for by the Assessing Authority and were so furnished by the Assessee and on a conscious application of mind only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive opinion or reason to believe is formed by the Assessing Authority is required to be conveyed to the Assessee and to which the Assessee is entitled to raise objections and without meeting those objections, the Assessing Authority is not permitted to undertake re-assessment proceedings and it is a question of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter and the said exercise cannot be lightly ignored by the Assessing Authority. 14.In the present case, we find that the Assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, which was rightly allowed by the Assessing Authority at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act and therefore after the expiry of 4 years in 2010, the impugned notice under Section 147/148 of the Act for AY 2003-04 issued on 31.03.2010 was not a valid initiation of the re-assessment proceedings. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the impugned re-assessment proceeding and there is no merit in the present appeal filed by Revenue and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
