Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 296 - HC - Income TaxValidity of assessment u/s 148 of the Act – Effect of Explanation to section 80IA of the Act with effect from April 01, 2000 – Whether the reassessment proceedings can be initiated only on the basis of insertion of Explanation which had been substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from April 01, 2000 - Held that:- Following Katira Construction Ltd. Versus Union of India & 2 [2013 (3) TMI 416 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - introduction of the explanation did not amount to introduction of a new provision of law with retrospective operation - The assessee was given the benefit of deduction considering the then explanation which was introduced with effect from 1.4.2007, which according to the Court was substantially the same and any attempt on the part of the Revenue – thus, to reopen the assessment would be in the nature of second opinion. The claim made for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which was allowed by the AO in scrutiny assessment - on the reassessment proceedings were initiated only on account of the addition of explanation - if the explanation is added to a statute for the removal of doubts, the implication is that the law was same from the beginning and the same is further explained by way of addition of the Explanation - it is not a case of introduction of new provision of law by retrospective operation, but when all the materials regarding activities of the assessee if are available on record and the benefit of the provision is already made available to such assessee, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated only on account of addition of such Explanation. The AO on a detailed scrutiny had explained the claim made by the AO u/s 80IA(4) of the Act - Explanation clarified that the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act would not be admissible in the case of an assessee carrying on business in the nature of works contract – the AO initiated such proceedings of reopening solely on ground of insertion of explanation and it is to be held as mere change of opinion – the assumption of jurisdiction on the AO shall need to be interfered by way of writ jurisdiction – thus, the notice u/s 148 of the Act is to be set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|