TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Under similar circumstances, in case of this very assessee for the assessment year 2006-07, we have by judgment passed separately today in Special Civil Application No.16372 of 2012 set aside the notice for reopening. The difference in the present case is that notice for reopening is issued within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the cognate matter, following order was passed. " 8. We have reproduced the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. First paragraph of the reasons pertains to the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, during which the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was not treating the hazardous waste as per the norms and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more lenient view, at best it can be said that for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer wanted to press in service the ground of the assessee not fulfilling the conditions for deduction as he had referred to in his order of assessment for the year 2009-10. This ground is completely independent and unrelated to his observation of the assessee not treating the hazardous waste as per the requisite norms. In the year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer had held that the assessee was executing the work as a work contractor and not in its own capacity. It was this defect, according to him, which made the assesee ineligible for deduction under Section 80IA (4) of the Act. 11. In this respect, firstly there was no failure on the part o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer wanted to rely on the failure of the assessee to properly treat the solid waste for denying the claim of deduction in the present year. However, this ground itself has multiple hurdles. Firstly, nowhere do the reasons record that there was such defect or default on the part of the assessee in treating the waste during the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. From the order of the Appellate Commissioner in appeal filed by the assessee against the original assessment for the said year, we gather that the defects were noticed by inspecting team of GPCB during its visit sometime in October and November 2011. Any defect or deficiency which may have been detected during a particular inspection visit would not necessar....