2019 (8) TMI 1334 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - deduction under Section 10A(1) denied - as per assessee he filed the statutory form in Form 56FS - HELD THAT - We were of the opinion that a genuine mistake had occurred when the assessee submitted Form 56FS. However, on a closer reading of the factual aspects, we find that the month and year of commencement furnished by the assessee are correct except for the date, as instead of 06.10.1997, it has been mentioned as 03.10.1997. Therefore, the theory of mistake committed while submitting Form 56FS deserves to be outrightly rejected. We have perused the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, from which, we find that there is absolutely no discussion nor there is anything to indicate that the Assessing Officer, while completing the scrutiny assessment on 04.10.2011, had taken into consideration these facts and more particularly the date, from which, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit under Section 10A. Re-assessment is within four years and under Section 147 AO has got powers to assess and re-assess. This aspect was elaborately gone into by the Assessing Officer while completing the re-assessment and subsequently by the CIT(A) by re-appreciating the factual position and once again by the Tribunal by further re-appreciating the factual position and noting the provisions of Section 10A of the Act as they stood during the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and the amendment made to Section 10A of the Act vide the Finance Act, 2000. Thus, we find that the entire issue revolves around the factual matrix and that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Entitlement for deduction under Section 10A(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Validity of Reopening under Section 147:
The appellant contested the reopening of assessment under Section 147, claiming it was a case of change of opinion without tangible material. The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The court noted the absence of discussion in the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) regarding the relevant facts for claiming benefits under Section 10A. The court found the reassessment within four years and upheld the Assessing Officer's powers under Section 147. The court concluded that the issue was factual, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose.

Entitlement for Deduction under Section 10A(1):
Regarding the deduction under Section 10A(1), the appellant argued that the approval as a software technology park unit was granted on 23.3.2000, not earlier. The appellant claimed a mistake in Form 56FS regarding the commencement date of manufacture. The court, after scrutiny, found the month and year of commencement correct, rejecting the theory of mistake. The court noted the Assessing Officer's oversight in considering the correct commencement date. Despite the appellant's contentions, the court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, confirming the denial of the deduction under Section 10A(1) for the appellant.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the tax case appeal, emphasizing the factual nature of the issues raised by the appellant. The court found no substantial question of law warranting consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.