Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURTReopening of assessment - claim made u/s 10B - According to the petitioner, date of commencement of manufacture of the product was 01.04.1996 - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted at this juncture that though, the relevant provisions u/s 10B (3) prior to amendment made in the year 1999, granted the benefit of deduction for five consecutive assessment years falling within a period of eight years beginning with the Assessment Year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture, the AO has granted deduction to the petitioner for continuous nine years till the Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, do not think that the Revenue is justified in contending that the petitioner is entitled only for five consecutive assessment years as covered u/s 10B (3), as existed prior to 01.04.1999 and contend that the present claim made by the petitioner is based on any false information. Even otherwise, this Court has to only see that as to whether these two relevant dates referred to at Serial Nos.7 and 8, are factually incorrect, so as to derive a conclusion that the petitioner has not truly and fully disclosed the material facts. As this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the date of commencement of manufacture of the product namely 01.04.1996, when the petitioner has chosen to claim direction from the second year onwards, the number of consecutive years for which deduction is claimed referred to at Serial No.8 is certainly the 10th year and therefore, such statement by the petitioner at Serial No.8, cannot be termed as false statement or claim. When such being the position, find that the Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment in the absence of failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the material fact. Reopening is barred by limitation, as the AO has not satisfied that the assessee has failed to disclose the material facts truly and fully. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
|