TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the business of software services and related business. For the Assessment Year 2006- 07, the petitioner had filed a return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 61.28 lacs. Said return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He passed a draft order of assessment on 11.2.2009 after making various additions to the income declared by the assessee. The assessee disputed certain additions. Upon which the final order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income- Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act') was passed on 26.10.2010. 3. To reopen such assessment, the respondent - Assessing Officer issued impugned notice dated 1.3.2013. He had recorded following reasons for issuing the notice : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,70,75,740/-) Total turnover (Rs.315,67,73,629/-) =Rs.70,55,08,217/-. Thus, the deduction computed was excess by Rs. 61,03,515/-. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 61,03,515/- has been under assessed on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts pertaining to the A.Y.2006-07 and no opinion was formed in the original assessment. In view of above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for reassessment by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act,1961." 4. Upon receipt of such reasons, the assessee raised objections on 26.3.2013.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 10A would not include telecommunication charges, freight and insurance incurred in the export of software, despite which the assessee had included the same which resulted into excess deduction being granted. 5. Learned counsel Mr.Soparkar for the petitioner pointed out that the notice in question was issued beyond the period of four years from the date of the assessment order. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Assessing Officer, therefore, could not have reopened the original assessment which was framed after scrutiny. 6. With respect to the first reason recorded by the Assessing Officer, counsel contended that there was no failure on the part of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the part of the Assessing Officer to grant larger relief than what was justified under the legal provisions. At any rate, this would not be a ground for reopening an assessment beyond four years. There were multiple other remedies available to the revenue to exercise within the time frame provided under the statute, but to reopen an assessment beyond the period of four years of the assessment order was simply not one of them since the requirement of such income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment must be relateable to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. 9. Coming to the second reason, we may recall, according to the Assessing Officer, various expenditu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered as telecommunication expenses. The same are fixed in nature and not incurred specifically for export of software. However, in case such expenses are reduced for the purpose of computing export turn over, the same are also to be reduced from the computation of total turn over. In other words, according to the assessee, if such charges were to be eliminated from the denominator of the ratio by which profit of business is to be multiplied for computing the exemption under section 10-A of the Act, the same would also be eliminated from the denominator. Whatever be the validity of the petitioner's such contention, surely, the petitioner cannot be stated to have not disclosed truly and fully all material facts. 11. Quite apart from t....