TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer disposing of the petitioner's objections to the grounds in support of the impugned notice dated 26 March 2010; (c) the assessment order dated 30 November 2010 passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Act along-with demand notice under Section 156 of the Act; and (d) show cause notice dated 30 November 2010, as to why penalty under Section 271 of the Act should not be imposed. 2. This petition was admitted on 20 June 2011 and the respondents were restrained from acting upon the Assessment Order, demand notice and show cause notice to impose penalty till the final disposal of the petition. 3. On 26 November 2007, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, in respect of the petitioner for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not certified the eligibility of the undertaking the claim of deduction based on another auditor's certificate in irregular. The has resulted in incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 2,10,41,019/-. It is also observed that in the 10CCB certificate date of commencement of UnitII has been shown as 22.3.2004. However, the Factory Licence is found to the issued on 22.4.2004 by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Daman. As the factory can not function without a licence from the competent authority and the licence was issued only on 22.4.2004, the date of commencement of production shown prior to 1.4.04 in the audit certificate is not correct. As such the unit is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB due to non fulfillment of all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00405. The petitioners pointed out they had commenced manufacturing activity during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2004-05 and in support thereof produced licence given by the Drug Authorities, registration with Excise Authorities, Sales Tax Authorities, etc. in support to its contention that manufacturing activity had commenced in previous year relevant to assessment year 2004-05. It was also contended that the impugned notice is on account of mere change of opinion. 5. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 23 November 2010 rejected the petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. This on the ground that there was no change of opinion, as according to the Assessing Officer, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s unable to justify the same. 8. Therefore the assessment order dated 30 November 2010 being in the face of binding decision of this Court in Asian Paints Ltd. (supra) cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The consequent demand notice dated 30 November 2010 issued under Section 156 of the Act and the show cause notice dated 30 November 2010 in respect of proposed penalty also cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. We shall now exmine the challenge to the impugned notice dated 26 March 2010 seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The second ground in the reasons recorded indicates that the basis of the Assessing Officer for issuing the impugned notice was that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory license to manufacture at Unit No.II before 31 March 2004. It is a settled position of law that at the stage of the impugned notice, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe the income eligible to tax has escaped assessment. This belief must be a prima facie view and not a final/concluded view. On reading of the grounds of the impugned notices, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the grounds in support of the impugned notices did not indicate a prima facie view warranting the issue of the impugned notices. Thus it cannot be said the initiation of proceedings by the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. 10. The petitioners on production of the evidence before the Assessing Officer during the reassessment pro....