TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2003-04 being ITA No. 2222/Hyd/2011. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 03/11/2003 admitting a total taxable income of Rs. 24,59,050/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 24/02/2005. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the reason that the interest income was not excluded while calculating the deduction u/s 80HHE of the Act and the reassessment was completed on 03/07/2006. 3. The Assessing Officer observed as follows: "that on perusal of the consultancy agreement entered into by the assessee on 17/04/2001 revealed that assessee is only a professional software consulta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eement on the basis of which the deduction had been claimed was part of the assessment record in the proceedings u/s 143(3) itself, that there was no new material for the Assessing Officer's conclusion that income had escaped assessment and that under the circumstances, there was merely a 'change of opinion' and not 'reason to believe' for the Assessing Officer. The AR relied on the decision in Kelvinator India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). The AR also submitted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not mention the specific words to the effect that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and without these specific words, the reopening was rendered invalid. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urrency, the TDS certificate mentioned the address of M/s Deloitte & Haskins, and the tax deducted at source had also been paid by them. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had examined the role of M/s Deloitte in the transaction of the assessee with M/s Dome Imaging Systems Inc., Subsequently, in the first reassessment, the Assessing Officer, as stated earlier, had examined the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 80HHE on the interest income. Neither of these two issues involved an examination of the nature of the assessee's transactions with Dome. 3.6.... 3.7... 3.8 Another argument taken by the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has not used the specific words 'reason to believe' in his reasons recorded for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch deduction and thereby erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not examined the nature of services before allowing such deduction though once a reassessment is made only to restrict the deduction u/s 80 HHE and thereby erred in upholding initiation of proceedings u/s 147. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the services rendered by the assessee does not fall with the meaning of services eligible for deduction u/s 80 HHE. 8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties, perused the record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is observed that the earlier reopening was done for excluding the interest income from the computation of deduction u/s 80HHE and the agreement on the basis of which the deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 to 855/Hyd/2006 for Assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03, order dated 30/03/2012, where the JM was one of the parties, there was no assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and only the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, whereas in the case under consideration, the re-assessment was made earlier on 03/07/2006 u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 and later on another reassessment was completed on 28/11/2008 u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147. Hence, all the materials were made available to the AO and the AO had applied his mind during the earlier reassessment made on 03/07/2006 itself. 10. In the present case, in the reassessment made on 03/07/2006, the Assessing Officer had applied his mind with respect to the agreement, which was not so, in the cases relied upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee himself. We also cannot accept the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The said subsection is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub-section (1) of section 143 or subsection (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of sectio....