9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed for determination of this Court: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action initiated by respondent No.3 in issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential passing of the orders u/s 143(3) is bad in law in view of the fact that the same have been issued/taken without proper service of notice u/s 148 which is a basic condition for starting of any proceedings under any enable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the ITAT has erred in not adjudicating upon the said issue though specifically taken as per Ground No.3? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the very issuance of notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence on record, thus, unsustainable in law? 7. Whether ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant facts and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, processing and exporting goods to various parts of the world. The assessee filed return for the assessment year in question on 31.10.2000 declaring total income of Rs. 11,05,920/-. The income also included deduction of Rs. 1,18,10,594/- claimed under Section 80HHC of the Act. The return was processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Section 292BB of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008. It reads thus:- "292BB: Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of the Act, which is required to be served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act that the notice was - (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first time before this Court do not give any valid justification for challenging the re-assessment proceedings on that ground. Accordingly, question No.1 is held not to be a substantial question of law calling for consideration of this Court. 10. Adverting to questions mentioned at 2, 3 and 4 above, claimed by the assessee, suffice it to notice that the reassessment proceedings were questioned by the assessee before the Tribunal wherein it was contended that the assessing officer had no material to take recourse to reassessment proceedings and the same was based on imagination, suspicion and change of opinion. The contention of the assessee was repelled by the Tribunal by noticing as under: "We have carefully perused the relevant facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questioned on the ground that the Assessing Officer already having issue an intimation u/s 143(1) of the act, could not issue reassessment notice on matter disclosed along with return and such notice should be taken as one prompted by change of opinion not permitted by law. The Supreme Court found that prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) (now deleted), is no assessment. In fact, in this case, such intimation was issued on 26th November, 2001, after intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was replaced with effect from 1.6.1999 by a different intimation under Section 143(1), which did not permit even such adjustment. There can be no change of opinion inferable, where no opinion could have been formed at the time of intimation." The Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction (see ITO v. Selected Dalurband Co. Ltd. [1996] 217 ITR 597 (SC) : Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC)." 11. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to demonstrate that the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal was perverse or against law in any manner. In the absence thereof, question Nos.2 to 4 as claimed by the assessee do not arise from the order of the Tribunal for consideration of this Court. 12. Question Nos. 5, 6 and 7 being general in nature cannot be held to be substantial questions of law that may require this Court to give any opinion thereon. 13. In all fairness to learned counsel for the assessee, the following judgments whereupon reliance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
