Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 798 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTReopening of Assessment – Examination of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act – Held that:- The notice has been issued within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year – there is a distinction between the expressions ‘change of opinion’ and ‘mere change of opinion’ as decided in Multiscreen Media Private Limited v. Union of India and another [2010 (2) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] a mere change of opinion is not enough - A change of opinion is permissible provided it is grounded on additional or tangible material. In Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2012 (9) TMI 69 - Gujarat High Court] it was held that the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - reopening of assessment within a period of four years could be made as long as it is not based on mere change of opinion - claim under section 80IB( 10) of the Act was the sole claim of the petitioner in the return filed - The entire claim was examined at length - To the extent the Assessing Officer thought the same was not allowable, after hearing the petitioner and inviting her response, he disallowed the substantial portion of the claim – thus, now it is not possible for the Revenue to canvas that yet another element of the claim was not gone into by the Assessing Officer. Regarding recording of Reasons - Held that:- The completion of housing project in the year 2010 was well within the time limit envisaged under the statute - There is insufficient material to hold so - Even the sale deed refer to several dates and events - Without reference to the original documents and further evidence, it would be hazardous to accept the petitioner’s contention that for the first time, the development permission was granted by the local authority only in the year 2007 - The validity of the reasons must be judged on the basis of requirement of reason to believe and not necessarily that the addition must invariably made ultimately – thus, this contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. The notice is quashed - Though second contention of the assessee is not accepted, petition allowed on the basis of first contention - Decided in favour of Assessee.
|