TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act. The petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny assessment and various details and information were called for by the then Assessing Officer and the same were duly furnished by the petitioner. By notice dated 12.11.2012 the then Assessing Officer called upon the to furnish details pertaining to activities of the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner furnished a reply, which also contained a note pertaining to the activities of the petitioner. The claim of deduction under section 80- IB(8A) of the Act of the petitioner was also examined. (3) After examining all the details, the then Assessing Officer, while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, consciously chose to make disallowance of mere Rs. 9,82,226/- under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act on the score that income to the extent of Rs. 9,82,226/- was not earned from the eligible business activities. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2017 came to be issued by the respondent under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the case of the petitioner for the year under consideration. The petitioner vide letter dated 01.04.2017 requested the respondent to supply copy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecessary for his assessment for the year under consideration. He has contended that the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act is evident from the return of income. Accordingly, the audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction is also obtained and the Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment had called for all details of the activities of the petitioner. Mr.Hemani has invited the attention of this court to the Form No.3CD which is a format of statement of particulars to be furnished under section 44AB of the Act. He has pointed out column No.7(b) wherein the particulars relating to nature of business or profession are to be supplied. The petitioner in response has specifically mentioned "to carry on business of providing Clinical Research Service to the Pharmaceutical Industry". It is also contended that the petitioner had furnished all the details about the activities of the Company as demanded by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 12.11.2012, and the claim of the deduction under section 80-IB(8A) of the Act was also examined, which culminated in to the disallowance of Rs. 9,82,226/-. In view of the said factual position, Mr.Hemani has subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present case since the Assessing Officer has not inquired into the true nature of the activities carried out by the petitioner. (9) We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties to the lis. (10) Unquestionably, the reopening is beyond a period of four years, and hence the same is permissible if an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The bare perusal of reasons recorded for reopening in the letter 05.04.2017 reveals that the assessment is reopened for the reason that the petitioner is providing professional service of research to their clients, which is not leading to technology development. (11) During the course of original assessment, the Assessing Officer under his notice dated 12.11.2012 raised several queries pertaining to the petitioner's return of income, one of which was to furnish the detailed activities of the company. In response to the notice, the petitioner conveyed to the Assessing Officer as under: "4.Activities of the company : We are a Clinical R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contention of the department that no detailed analysis was done by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny in relation to the activities carried out by the petitioner. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner had supplied all the details of the activities in response to the notice dated 12.11.2012. Thus, it can be assumed that the claim of the petitioner was processed in detail. The assessment cannot be reopened by forming an opinion that the activities carried on by the petitioner was professional service of research not leading to technology development only on the basis that the Assessing Officer failed to raise a particular question to that effect. It will be apposite to take note of observations made in the judgement rendered in similar set of facts in the case of Cliantha Research Ltd. (supra). The same are quoted as under: "17. From the above it can be seen that the petitioners claim for deduction under Section 80IB(8A) of the Act came for detailed scrutiny by the Assessing Officer in the original scrutiny assessment. Series of queries were raised by the Assessing Officer. All such questions were answered at length by the assessee. He file....