9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court held that where assessment was ought to be reopened in case of assessee on ground that a search conducted at DSC Group of Companies revealed bogus purchases made by assessee through unexplained sources, since reasons recorded by AO did not make specific allegations of failure to disclose all material facts by assessee, jurisdictional ingredients for reopening assessment provided in first proviso to Section 147 were absent, both in form and substance and, thus, proceedings were bad in law. In the case of Dhirendra Hansraj Singh [ 2018 (5) TMI 1386 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] High Court held that where after expiry of four years from end of relevant year, Assessing Officer sought to reopen assessment on ground that deduction u/s 80-IB(11A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052527901(1) vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in reopening the assessment under Section. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and in not permissible either in law or on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of the Ld. AO in disallowing deduction under Section. 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,17,432/- in respect of interest earned from cooperative banks. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of the Ld. AO in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levying penalty under Section 270A, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income on 26.09.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 2,09,64,300/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 40,84,182/- under Section 80P of Chapter VIA of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny' under CASS for the following reasons: i. Large specified domestic transactions (Form 3 CED) ii. Large income shown by large contractors and iii. Mismatch between income/r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2016. TPO, vide letter dated 23.12.16 considered TP case as withdrawn. Assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 28.12.2016. On verification of available record, it was found that though assessee had made application under safe harbour rule, no order was issued. The system of safe harbour rules was not followed properly and one of the consequences was that the other issues of CASS could not be examined due to lack of time. Under such circumstances, AO was of the opinion that there is escapement of income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. 6. Before us, the first ground raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Reasons for Reopening do not specify either the Specific issues for which case is sought to be reopened and nor th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. - (2018) 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) in support of the above proposition. In this case, amount of income escaping assessment has not at all been quantified in reasons for reopening. Hence, reopening is not justified for this reason as well. 8. The third argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us is that reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year but there is no failure on the part of the assessee as to full and true disclosure. The case of the assessee was originally selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The case has been reopened vide notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 i.e. beyond a period of four years from the end relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that where after expiry of four years from end of relevant year, Assessing Officer sought to reopen assessment on ground that deduction under Section 80-IB(11A) was wrongly claimed as assessee was engaged in manufacturing and processing of fruit juices and did not derive profits from processing, preservation and packaging of fruits, since there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly any material facts which were necessary for assessment, in view of proviso to Section 147, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be set aside. Further, we also agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the reasons for reopening also do not specify the amount of income having escaped assessment, so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
