Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1756 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- As is evident from the letter dated 13.06.2008, the return was already processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.03.2007. The reason for reopening the assessment were recorded only after the assessee, vide letter dated 7.7.2008, has furnished the information called for by the AO. According to the learned DR, the AO had called for information to satisfy herself about the reasons for reopening of the assessment. We find that there is no such provision in the Act to initiate re-assessment proceedings after requiring the assessee to furnish the information. However, we also cannot consider the letter dated 13.06.2008 as a notice u/s 143(2) as 143(2) notice should have been issued before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished and the AO could not have issued the notice u/s 142(1) once time period for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) has expired. Therefore, the letter dated 13.06.2008 cannot be considered as a notice either u/s 143(2) or u/s 142(1) of the Act and assessee’s contention that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated when the assessment proceedings are pending is not substantiated. Disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IB(5)(ii), though on a ground different from the reasons mentioned for reopening of the assessment - Held that:- When an assessment is reopened on any one ground which is sustained in the reassessment proceedings, the entire assessment is before the AO and he can consider any other issue which has come to his notice during the re-assessment proceedings as held by the full Bench in the case of CIT vs. Best Wood (2010 (12) TMI 748 - KERALA HIGH COURT). The assessment was reopened to consider the allowability of the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(5)(ii) has been made during the re-assessment proceedings and therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the assessee that the re-assessment proceedings are invalid. Therefore, ground of appeal No.3 is rejected. Deduction u/s 80IA - Held that:- Initial A.Y referred to in section 80IA would only be the year of deduction u/s 80IA claimed for the first time out of the total period, and not the year of commencement of eligible business and that the assessee had the option to choose the initial A.Y for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the assessee making the claim u/s 80IB during the A.Y before us. Computation of deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- In the case of the assessee, though the assessee has got its books of account audited and Form 10CCB is signed by the C.A. of the assessee company, the report is not signed by the CA but is signed by the authorized signatory. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee, there is no variation in the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(5) in Form No.10CCB and P&L A/c and balance sheet of the assessee filed during the re-assessment proceedings. Therefore, the objection raised by the AO, in our opinion, is a technical objection and unless the AO brings out as to how the P&L A/c and the balance sheet are not reliable and vary with the results declared by the assessee in Form No.10CCB, the AO cannot deny the deduction on this ground alone. In view of the same, we direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IB(5)(ii) of the Act after verifying the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(5)(ii) of the Act. Deduction u/s. 80G - Held that:- Assessee has not been able to produce any evidence in support of payment of ₹ 65,000 to institutions registered u/s 80G of the Act. In the absence of any material in support of assessee’s claim, the same cannot be entertained. Therefore, Ground of appeal No.4 is rejected.
|