9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction claimed thereunder. However, now, the AO seeks to reopen the assessment and disallow such deduction on the ground that in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2013-14, the petitioner had sold flats to related persons. In the opinion of this court, if, in the year 2013-14, any event has taken place that disentitles the petitioner from claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) it would relate to that year alone. The assessments of the earlier years wherein deduction had been allowed because the petitioner/assessee was, otherwise, entitled to such deduction, cannot be reopened to disallow a claim, which was valid in the year under consideration. In the aforesaid premises, this court is of the considered opinion that on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, as no scrutiny assessment was carried out in pursuance of the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Thereafter, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 26.03.2018 under section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 stating that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and called upon the petitioner to file its return of income. In response to the notice, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 06.04.2018 requesting the respondent to treat the return filed on 31.08.2011 as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, received notices dated 20.08.2018 under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Along with the notice under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer, on the basis of information gathered during the assessment proceedings for assessment year 201314, has observed that the petitioner assessee had sold Flat No.403 to Shri Gautam K. Patel and Flat No.404 to Smt. Bhavna Gautam Patel, who are husband and wife, and thereby, contravened the mandatory provisions of clause (f)(i) of section 80IB(10) of the Act, which is a condition precedent for availing the benefit of deduction under the said section. Therefore, on the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax to the extent of ₹ 79,91,226/had escaped assessment. It was submitted that therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment by issuing the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... metax law is independent and separate for each assessment year, the disallowance cannot be made applicable to the whole project. It was also contended that the provisions of clauses (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act are prospective in nature and do not operate retrospectively. 8. In the order rejecting the objections, the Assessing Officer has, as usual, perfunctorily disposed of the objections, without dealing with the submissions advanced by the petitioner in proper perspective. As noted earlier, in this case, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act is not attracted, and hence, the inquiry, at this stage, is limited to whether there are any reasonable grounds for the Assessing Officer to form the belief that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2013-14, any event has taken place that disentitles the petitioner from claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, it would relate to that year alone. The assessments of the earlier years wherein deduction had been allowed because the petitioner/assessee was, otherwise, entitled to such deduction, cannot be reopened to disallow a claim, which was valid in the year under consideration. In the aforesaid premises, this court is of the considered opinion that on the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, no reasonable person could have formed the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore cannot be sustained. 11. For the foregoing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
