9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal"]. 3. According to Mr Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, the only issue which arises for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal had erred in law, by ruling in favour of the respondent/assessee, that the reassessment proceeding was not triggered validly, i.e., as per law. 4. The reasons to believe furnished by the Assessing Officer (AO), dated 06.09.2005, indicate that the reassessment proceeding was triggered on the following two (2) grounds : (i) First, the respondent/assessee had not deposited the employer's and employees' contribution with the statutory authorities administering the Provident Fund and ESI fund, amounting to Rs. 14,12,034/-, as per the provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther do not have any mention about the tangible material, which triggered the AO to reopen the completed assessment. The assessee had produced books of accounts before the AO in original proceedings which were test checked by the AO. It is also born out on record that specific notes to the computation of income, as reproduced above, were available on record before the Assessing Officer while completing the original assessment order. Therefore, it can hardly be said that there was any omission on the part of the assessee to produce all the material facts necessary for completion of assessment. The reasons recorded are silent as to the tangible material, whatsoever, leading the AO to form a belief of escapement. In presence of all these facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO to draw the necessary inferences. In the present case the Aos omission appears to have been the sole basis for issuing the reassessment notice and consequently proceeding to make the impugned demand. In the light of the above discussion this petition has to succeed. The impugned notice, dated 20.3.2012 and the demands arising consequent to it through the notice dated 03.10.2012 and 09.11.2012 are hereby quashed." In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the legal grounds raised by the assessee against the validity of re-opening of assessment. Accordingly, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is held as invalid, thereby quashing the consequential assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Hence, the grounds on merits of addition bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered prophylactic at the relevant point in time, is extracted hereafter: "2. The cost incurred on certain marketable software products under developments were brought forward from previous as capital WIP. Due to uncertainty in revenue which could be realized in future from marketing such products, the management has charged off to P&L account. Since the amount is for software developed for business purpose is of revenue nature, the same is being claimed as detection." [Emphasis is ours] 15. There is no dispute about the fact that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, via order dated 24.04.2005. 16. Given this factual position, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
