Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1231 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether Assessment barred by limitation? - petitioner had claimed deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act, in respect of the profit and gains from infrastructural development - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the reasons as extracted above reveal that the officer intends to revisit the issue of allowability of expenditure, in light of his observations on the VGF grant. Without adverting to the veracity or otherwise of the reasons, it would suffice to look into the bar of limitation set out under the provisions of Section 147 itself. Normally an order of reassessment is to be passed within a period of four (4) years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessment year in question is 2012-13 and the period of four (4) years would expire on 31.03.2017. However, in cases where the escapement of income as alleged by the respondent is attributable to an incorrect or incomplete disclosure made by the petitioner, the benefit of another two years is granted to the Department to reassess the income that had escaped assessment in the original instance. The notice under Section 148 of the said Act is dated 29.03.2019 and clearly the respondent has availed benefit of the extended limitation. However, upon a reading of the scrutiny order of assessment as well as the reasons for reassessment, it is of categoric view that there is no escapement that has been occasionedby virtue of an incorrect or incomplete disclosure by the petitioner in this case. The reasons for reopening make no reference to any flaw or failing in the disclosures made by the petitioner originally. Neither do they make reference to any material that has come to the notice of the Department post-completion of the scrutiny assessment. The order of assessment passed initially is detailed in its examination of the VGF grant and the allowability of the expenditure claimed. Admittedly, nothing has come to note after framing of assessment, to indicate an incomplete or untrue disclosure by the petitioner, the bar of limitation would apply on all fours to the present case. Since the burden of establishing the satisfaction of the statutory condition set out in the proviso rests fully upon the Department, and such burden has not been discharged in the present case, the impugned proceedings for reassessment fail. The impugned order is set aside and this writ petition allowed.
|