TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Nothing has been disclosed by Revenue to give credence to the statement in the reasons to believe that in spite of repeatedly asking for copies of bills and vouchers towards construction of the bridges, assessee never produced any evidence, in the face of contents of said two notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143 (2). Court has once again looked at notice dated 24th October/19th November, 2007 issued under section 143(2) and earlier notice dated 9th April, 2007 under section 142(1). The assertion in the affidavit-in-opposition that the AO for the first time came to know that assessee was not in the business of infrastructural facility but in the business of outdoor advertisement, thereby not fulfilling criteria for deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this writ petition is against notice dated 24th March, 2011 issued under section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening to assess/re-assess the income for assessment year 2006-07. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to what has been said to 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the Executive Engineer and his official seal do not appear in the letter. Thirdly, the letter is completely silent about the over bridge at Kaikhali crossing. Thus the genuinity of the letter is to be verified. Mr. Basu submits, his client is engaged, inter alia, in infrastructure projects and entitled to avail exemption under section 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 all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative duly authorised in writing in this behalf or produce or cause there to be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which you may rely in support of the return filed by you. In the circumstances, attempt to reopen is on change of opinion. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 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 assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eopening of the same. The Assessing Officer reopened the case as soon as he came to know about the new information that the assessee company was not in the business of the infrastructural facility but in the business of out-door advertisement and not fulfilling the criteria for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of stand taken by Revenue on the reasons to believe, it must be seen whether 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 provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure in the affidavit-in-opposition. Letter of Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Department received on 14th January, 2011 in response to notice dated 27th October, 2010 issued under section 133(6), are correspondence post assessment order dated 14th July, 2008, in scrutiny assessment made under section 143(3). The notice dated 27th October, 2010 issued under clause (6) in section 133, according to the Assessing Officer, drew belated response from Executive Engineer PWD (Roads) Department and not relied upon in the reasons, for being of doubtful genuineness. Absence of reliable answer from, such as appears to be given by a government functionary, being noticee under clause (6) in section 133, can be cause for further enquiry but not tangible m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
