9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be reasons, for belief of the Assessing Officer to reopen and reassess. Following from the reasons for belief, stated by communication dated 4th March, 2011, are reproduced below:- "In the instant case, in course of completion of I.T. assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 it was observed that almost the entire income has been claimed by assessee as exempted u/s 80IA of the I.T. 1961. As per Form 10CCB the initial assessment year of such claim is 2001-02. Vide letter dated 25.10.10 it was submitted by the assessee that it is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising and to develop, operate and maintain Infrastructural Facility (Bridge). In support the assessee furnished the copy of agreement with Executive Engineer, P.W. (Roads) Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 80-IA. Such exemptions were allowed in previous assessment years but re-assessment proceeding initiated in subsequent assessment for assessment year 2008-09. He draws attention to averments, inter alia, in paragraph 26 in the petition, which are reproduced below : "26. Your petitioner states that for the first time for the assessment year 2008-09 the Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on the ground that from the Balance Sheet it shows that no fixed asset has been disclosed in the audited Balance Sheet though under the agreement the assessee become the owner of the two overpasses i.e. over bridges for 20 years. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the CIT (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 320 ITR 561 and submits, there is no tangible material disclosed in the reasons to believe, let alone any link with formation of the belief. He wants interference. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate appears on behalf of Revenue and relies on the reasons for belief. He argues, bills and vouchers towards construction of the bridges were not produced by assessee. Its claim of having constructed, remains unverified. During assessment proceeding, no confirmatory certificate was received from Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, in response to notice dated 7th October, 2010 under section 133(6). He submits, this is not a case of change of opinion but the Assessing Officer found, assessee had failed to fully disclose truly, all material facts ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether they are good reasons, as based on tangible material having live link with formation of the belief. Jurisdiction to reassess is assumed when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe, any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, subject to certain provisions. First proviso lays down parameters regarding assumption of this jurisdiction where an assessment under sub-section (3) in section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year. There is no dispute that for the relevant assessment year, a return under section 139 was filed by assessee. The notice issued under section 143(2) is pursuant to a notice issued under section 142(1). In such circumstances, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
