TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Year 2010-2011. 4. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under : 4.1 That the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2010-2011. That the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act as well as Section 14A of the Act. That, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Detail questionnaires were asked by the Assessing Officer with respect to the claim under Section 14A as well as Section 10B of the Act. The assessee furnished the detailed particulars. That, after detailed scrutiny, the Assessing Officer made disallowances of Rs. 1,00,652/= under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and made additions. That, on the basis of the material on record, the Assessing Officer also accepted the deductions claimed under Section 10B of the Act. 4.2 That thereafter, beyond the period of four years, the Assessing Officer has issued the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Act alleging inter alia that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-2011. 4.3 That, at the request made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer furnished the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government u/s. 14 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951. Since the assessee had not furnished the requisite certificates from the prescribed authority ie., Board appointed by the Central Government under Section 14 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 for fulfillment of all the conditions for eligibility of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, in respect of STP Unit at Pune, it is patently a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment year 20102011. Thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the condition for eligibility of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, in respect of STP unit at Pune, the deduction of Rs. 8,93,345/=. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the income to extent of Rs. 20,66,325/= [Rs. 11,72,980 + 8,93,345] within the meaning of the provision of Section 147 of the I.T Act, 1961. Hence, it is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 to M/s. E-Infochips Limited for A.Y 2010-2011." 4.4 That, the assessee raised detailed objections against the reopening. It was mainly contended on behalf of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Licence Fees were duly provided as and when sought for and/or required by the Assessing Oficer and the same was scrutinized by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that therefore, now having allowed the claim, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, merely for the re-computation by taking a different view on the same material available with him. 6.3 It is further submitted by Shri B.S Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case, there are two reasons assigned for reopening of the completed assessment viz., [a] to disallow the expenditure under Section 148A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules; and [b] to disallow claim under Section 10B holding that the petitioner has not obtained requisite certificate from the Board appointed by the Central Government under Section 14 of the Industries Development & Regulation Act, 1951. It is further submitted by Shri Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner-assessee that both the aforesaid issues were gone into in detail by the Assessing Officer, while framing the original assessment. It is submitted that a thorough inquiry was made during the original assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear then without disturbing the disallowance in the initial year, the subsequent years cannot be disturbed. It is further submitted that a similar notice for reopening for A.Y 2008-2009 has been quashed and set-aside by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13860 of 2014 by observing that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to truly and fully disclose all the material facts. 6.5 Making the above submissions, Shri B.S Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested this Court to allow the present petition. 7. Shri Manish R Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently opposed the present petition. 7.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue that though the assessee claimed deduction towards interest paid, and though the Assessing Officer accepted the same, however, it has been found that the assessee did not give investment-wise details of dividend income of Rs. 23,00,000/= and tax free interest on bonds of Rs. 10,65,386/=. It is submitted that even the assessee has not given any details and evidences as to which investment would be included for the purpose of disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was any failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment, the reopening beyond the period of four years is not permissible. 11. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the concluded scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act on two grounds viz., [a] to disallow the expenditure under Section 148A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules; and [b] to disallow claim under Section 10B holding that the petitioner has not obtained requisite certificate from the Board appointed by the Central Government under Section 14 of the Industries Development & Regulation Act, 1951. 11.1 From the order of assessment, it appears that deduction claimed by the assessee towards expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was gone into and specifically discussed by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the scrutiny assessment. Number of queries came to be raised, and which came to be answered by the assessee. That thereafter, even the Assessing Officer also made a further deduction of Rs. 1 lac. Therefore, the said issue was specifically discussed and gone into by the Assessing Officer....