TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment. It is not necessary that the assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. As a background we must note that assessee had established business and had received approval to set up EPZ, i.e., Export Processing Zone vide notification dated 31st May 1994. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide its letter dated 3rd March 2004 had informed assessee that the EPZ was converted into a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) vide resolution dated 1st November 2000 but all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notification dated 31st May 1994 remained unchanged. Assessee u/s 80IA was entitled to claim deduction for any ten consecutive assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the law which has come to his notice that he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law on which he has now become aware and the opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, colour the significance of such law. The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax Officer. We have to note that the Income Tax Officer who has issued the notice to reopen and who has recorded the reasons to believe based on which we would assume he has obtained approval under Section 151 of the Act has chosen to suppress the fact that there were audit objections raised. In the reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustry Vide Notification dated 01.11.2000 granted approval to convert the Surat Export Zone into Surat Special Economic Zone (SURSEZ), which is the first private owned SEZ in India. Further, on perusal of 10 CCB it is found that, the assessee had stated to have commenced its operation from date of GOI s notification dated 1st November 2000 and stated to claim deduction u/s 80IA from A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. Thus, as per the Form 10CCB the assessee had claimed to have commenced its business in November 2000 much before the date of recognition to 80IA(4)(iii) since commencement of operating and maintain SEZ was Nov. 2000 (as per Form 10CCB), not after the effective date 1st April 2001 as per the provisions of section 80IA(4)(iii) r.w.r. 18C o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by an order dated 4th February 2022. It is this notice and the order rejecting objections which are impugned in this petition. 4. Since pleadings are completed, with the consent of the counsel we decided to dispose this petition at this stage itself. 5. The notice dated 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act being for the Assessment Year 2013-14, more than four years have expired since the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Therefore, the provisio to Section 147(1) of the Act would apply. As per the proviso no such reopening of assessment is permissible after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there has been failure on the part of assessee to truly and fully disclose all material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the A.O. while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that the assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. 7. We should also note that a notice to reopen had been issued even for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the reasons recorded therein are identical to the reasons recorded for reopening for the year at hand, i.e., for Assessment Year 2013-14. In those reasons for Assessment Year 2006-07 it is stated that assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as the company had set up the EPZ notified by notification dated 31st May 1994. As a backgroun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Park. 8. We agree with Mr. Vaidya that this is nothing but a case of change of opinion by the A.O. from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings and this change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 9. We should also note that in the affidavit in reply filed through one Ms. Jyothi Sharma affirmed on 24th April 2023 it is stated that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated in view of the objections/ observations raised by the revenue audit. The law on that is quite settled. In every case the Income Tax Officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequences of the law mentioned in the audit not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
