Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2019 (6) TMI 441 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - reasons relates to income on sale of car parking area of flat allotment of more than one flats - HELD THAT - The petitioner had produced full accounts. In the profit and loss account the petitioner had showed income of Rs. 112.58 Crores from sale of flats. A separate sum of Rs. 4, 48, 50, 0000/- was shown by way of receipt from sale of car parking. Along with the return the petitioner had also produced accounts dully attached in From 3CD which also contained such details. In plain terms there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. AO in his reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice has proceeded on the basis of the material already on record clearly indicating there was no material alient to the record on which he had placed reliance in order to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The objections with respect to not providing built up area details and breach of clause (f) to Section 80-IB(10) of the Act are unsustainable factually and legally respectively. The assessee had provided full details including built up area of the flats sold contrary to what the AO had asserted in the reasons recorded. Further the clause (f) of Section 80-IB(10) would apply in case of allotment to an individual as the Section itself clearly provides which is not a case in the present case. Contention of the Revenue that certain objections not having been taken by the assessee in response to the notice issued would preclude him from raising a contention that the petition is not borne out from any authority or statutory provision. If there is legal contention which goes to the root of the matter and which would render the action of the AO of issuing notice of reassessment without jurisdiction such a ground cannot be showed out merely because in the written objections the petitioner had not thought of raising it. Accepting any such contention would enable the revenue to proceed further with the reassessment which at a later relatably stage when shown to be without jurisdiction would be liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|