Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - Special Civil Application No. 12767 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ. For The Petitioner : MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE For The Respondent : MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 9.3.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Incometax, Ahmedabad, rejecting the petitioner's revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Brief facts are as under. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in export of Back Office Operation and computer software. The petitioner had filed the return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring a total income of ₹ 98,360/. In the return, the petitioner had claimed deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act ( the Act for short). Return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. During such scrutiny assessment, he had raised several questions with respect to the petitioner's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act, in respect to which the petitioner had replied under an undated communication (AnnexureB) as under: 2. Documents relevant with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re than six months(i.e. After September) Total turnover 51341330 176341082 ( 176586500245418) 176925454 =5,11,71,753 Rs.5,12,42,970/original claim 5,11,71,753 = 71,217/( Excess amount) Thus the eligible amount for deduction u/s. 10B comes of ₹ 51171753/instead of the assessee has claimed the amount of ₹ 5,12,42,970/. 4. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 18.3.2014. In order to do so, he had recorded the following reasons : In this case the assessee filed return of income for the above assessment year on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of ₹ 98,630/after claiming the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of ₹ 5,12,42,970/in respect of its Ahmedabad unit of ₹ 4,67,32,162/and Cochin unit of ₹ 45,10,808/. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 12/02/2009. Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 02/06/2010 determining the income of the assessee at ₹ 76,72,050/which includes the addition made on account of the following : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... but eventually submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and participated in the reassessment proceedings during which also the assessee raised serious dispute about the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to carry out reassessment. The assessee also raised additional grounds on merits of the claim. Ignoring such objections of the petitioner, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order of assessment on 25.3.2015 disallowing the petitioner's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not fulfilled the requirement of being a 100% exportoriented undertaking since it did not enjoy the approval by the Board appointed by the Central Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of assessment before the Commissioner in a revision petition filed under section 264 of the Act. The Revision petition came to be dismissed by the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 9.3.2017. Before the Commissioner also, the assessee had argued that reopening of the assessment itself was bad in law. This was in addition to the assessee's contention that even otherwise deduc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Board appointed by the Government of India. Certification by STPI was not a substitute for such approval. Assessing Officer during the original assessment had not examined this aspect. Reopening of the assessment was therefore, valid. The Commissioner did not commit any error in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner. 9. In the present petition, the petitioner having participated in the assessment proceedings and thereafter having challenged the order of assessment before the Commissioner in revision petition under section 264 of the Act, has filed the present petition. Nevertheless, the central issue is with respect to the validity of the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer. In this context relevant facts are that the assessment for the assessment year 20072008 was completed after scrutiny. The notice for reopening of such assessment came to be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of assessment year in question. 10. In this context we have noticed that the Assessing Officer in th original assessment proceedings had examined the assessee's claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. It is not as if such claim went unnotice .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates