9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d probabilities of the case. The following grounds are mutually exclusive. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of claims under sections 80HHC and 80IA in a reassessment when the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all the material particulars and the original assessment was also a regular assessment. Thus, the impugned assessment is ab initio void and bad in law. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer by restricting the deductions claimed under sections 80HHC and 80IA. He ought to have allowed the deductions as claimed by the assessee both under sections 80HHC and 80IA. 4. The learned CIT (A) failed to apply paragraph No. 32.11 of the CBDT Circular No.621 dated 19-12-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A)-II, Hyderabad and the CIT(A) allowed all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide his order dt.14- 11-2002. Subsequently, the assessment for the assessment year under consideration was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee had computed quantum of deduction allowable under section 80HHC on which the deduction under section 80IA had been claimed. Thereafter, a notice under section 147 issued and an order u/s 143(3) read with sec.147 was passed on 28-2-2005, applying provisions of section 80IA(9) while computing deduction allowable under section 80HHC and calculating interest chargeable under sections 234B and 234C without giving se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Even if these deductions are allowed one after other, the purpose of introduction of sec.80IA(9) could be served. The decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Pvt. Limited (2009) 315 ITR (AT) (Delhi) (SB) is not contradictory to his submissions. Rather, it is in conformity with his submissions. The lower authorities have not verified whether the assessee has claimed more than 100% of the profits of the industrial undertaking as deduction in terms of sections 80HHC and 80IA of the Act. Hence, he submitted that, if required, the matter may be restored to the file of the assessing officer for factual verification whether the assessee's claim for deductions under sections 80HHC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the aspect of claiming double deduction as per the provisions of subsection (9) of section 80IA of the Act was not before the assessing officer in the original assessment. Hence, there was no change of opinion by the assessing officer on this aspect. Therefore, we do not see any change of opinion formed by the assessing officer for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer is right in reopening the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. On merit, we find that this issue was already dealt with by the larger Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Pvt. Limited (supra). The Special Bench of the Tribunal held that a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 80IA at 30% ₹ 30 Deduction u/s 80HHC at 50% of [₹ 100-₹ 30] ₹ 35 Net taxable income ₹ 35 Thus, it is clear from the above working laid down by the Special Bench that the deduction allowable under S.80HHC of the Act from the export profit is at a lower figure, by computing this deduction after reducing the deduction allowed under S.80IA of the Act. The Special Bench ruling relied on the specific provisions of S.80IA [9] of the Act. Accordingly, we feel it proper to restore this matter to the file of the assessing officer for ascertaining the fact whether he had worked out the deduction under S. 80HHC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
