9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80IA of Rs. 79,53,563/- b) Disallowed depreciation of Rs. 3,52,694/- 2. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) allowed the appellants appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings. 3. Thereafter, the Revenue filed appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, lndore against the decision of the CIT(A). The Revenue filed appeal challenging the decision of CIT(A) before Hon'ble ITAT, Indore with the strong grounds but the same could not be considered in pursuance the monitory limit of Tax. The tax effect in this case of Rs. 27,95,886/- . 4. The Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Indore vide combined order dated 22.08.2019 bearing ITA No. 379/Indl2017 (Mls N.T. Thomas Memorial Educational & Development Society, Indore) & others (M/s Sharp Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Indore) dismissed the appeal of the Department in view of circular No. 03, of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 and subsequent amendment dated 20.08.2018 and 08.08.2019 on low tax effect without considering the merits of the case. 6. On going through the order referred to above, it appears that the revenue's appeals have been dismissed on the ground of monetary limit. In this regard, y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase was reopened uls 147 of the LT. Act, 1961 on the basis of the audit objection raised by the Revenue Audit Party, where the audit objection has been accepted by the department and re-assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) r.w.S 147 was completed on 25/02/2015 and therefore the case falls under the ambit of exception enumerated in the CSDT circular No. 03/2018 dt. 11/07/2018 under Clause 10(c) i.e. where the Revenue Audit Objection is the case has been accepted by the department. 4. The Learned A.O has already denied in proceedings before high court that the case was reopened on the basis of audit objected raised by Revenue audit/internal audit party. 4.1. Please refer to the Reply filed by the AO. with Affidavit on oath dt. 30106/2015 in Hon'ble High Court on 04/07/2015 in the petition of Appellant in the same proceedings, a relevant extract thereof is reproduced here. 4. Denied. A show Cause dated 22.01.2013 was issued to the assessee on the basis of scrutiny of assessment records and there is no reference of any objection raised by the Revenue Audit Party. Copy of the said Show Cause Letter is attached and marked as ANNEXURE-R/2. Thus, the contention raised by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 as there is no reference of any audit objections in any of its, Notices, or Orders particularly detailed in 6.1 to 6.3 below:- 6.1 Show cause notice issued on 22nd January 2013 before issue of Notice U/s 148 (Copy enclosed) A.O had in past also issued a Show cause notice in January 2013, i.e. before issue of notice U/s 148, which is as below. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2), INDORE F.No.ACIT-1(2)/Ind/Audit/2012-13/ January 22, 2013 To Sharp Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, 302 Morya Arace, Old Palasia, Indore Sub: Showcause notice under Income Tax Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2007-08 reg Please refer to the assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 19.11.2009 in your case. On scrutiny of the assessment records, it is observed that you have claimed deduction of Rs. 79,92,473/- u/s 80IA and allowed Rs. 79,53,563/-. However, it is observed that you have worked as Special Project Vehicle (SPV) of M/s Nila Bharat Engineering Ltd and BOT work done by you was not a new infrastructure facility and carried out work as SPV. Hence you have not fulfilled the conditions of 80IA to avail deduction. Hence this has resulted in under assessment of income of Rs. 79 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on 20/02/2015. 7.The Original Assessment U/s 143(3) was completed in November 2009, and therefore the revenue audit should have been completed for above proceedings at the most by March 2011, therefore also it is not clear that, if the audit objections were accepted by department. 7.1. Why Notice U/s 148 was issued in March 2014 i.e. after 3 years from completion of audit. 7.2. Why a show cause notice was issued in the January 2013, instead of Notice U/s 148, or Notice of revision U/s 263. Issue of Show cause Notice itself is evidence of that either there were no audit objections, or same were not accepted by the Department till January 2013. 7.3. Moreover if Department is of view that the order is erroneous, the correct remedy is revision of order U/s 263 of the Act and not reassessment proceedings U/s 147 which is applicable only on receipt of fresh information which was not on records at the time of original assessment proceedings. From the above it is clear that either there was no audit objection or, even if there were any audit objections, same were not accepted by the department. Sir merely existence of audit objections is not sufficient, it should be accepted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
