TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring NIL income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/sec. 143(2) dated 18/08/2009 was issued. Subsequently, a notice u/sec. 142(1) dated 27/01/2010 was issued for calling information. In response to the notice, the assessee filed all the relevant details. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply and the material available on record, assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) of the Act dated 31/12/2010. 3. Subsequently, a notice u/sec. 148 dated 19/03/2015 was issued to the assessee on the ground that income of the assessee is chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2008-09 as escaped within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and asked the assessee to file reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Subsequently, change of incumbent again notice u/sec. 143(2) dated 01/03/2016 was issued to the assessee calling explanation. In response, the assessee has filed a detailed reply vide letter dated 08/03/2016 wherein submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 33,00,541/- for non-deduction of tax at source (TDS). The assessment was completed after detailed v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment in this case was completed u/sec. 143(3) on 31/12/2010 and a notice for reopening was issued u/sec. 148 on 19/03/2015 which is beyond four years and therefore assessment cannot be reopened unless assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In this case, the assessee has disclosed all the material facts, therefore reopening of assessment is not valid. By pointing out at page No. 133 of the paper book, which is a notice u/sec. 142(1) dated 16/12/2010 and also reply filed at page No. 141, ld.AR submitted that all the details are furnished before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after examining all the facts, completed the assessment. Even in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has recorded that the case of the assessee was examined and discussed with the concerned material available on record. Therefore, the reopening is not valid. He further submitted that assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/sec. 148 after four years and submitted that to reassess the escapement of income after four years, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7) Sinking Fund (85% of the Development Charges collected) Rs. 19,27,95,540/- 2) It is very clear that all the above amounts were received during the current assessment year except the liability mentioned under the head 7 Sinking Fund which is 85% of the Development Charges collected amounting to Rs. 19,27,95,540/- has been transferred from the Income & Expenditure account with a view to incur the Development expenditure towards the Infrastructure, as mentioned in the G.O. (Government Order) relevant to the Urban Development Authority. The relevant portion of the G.O. is reproduced as under:- "In the Government Order it is stated that while enhancing the collection of the development Charges it was indicated there in that the amount collected by the Urban Development Authorities shall be kept it in a separate account of Vice Chairman of Urban Development Authorities and the Urban Development Authorities shall utilize 85% of the income to implement the provisions of Master Plan Viz. (a) Traffic improvement (b) Construction of the Bridges (c) Development of Green Belt and parks etc. and remaining 15% can be utilized for the admin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransferred to development fund account during the year under consideration, therefore, we do not find any merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the same is allowable under section 36(1)(xii) of the I.T. Act." 7) As can be seen from the para No.3, the expenditure towards the On the basis of the findings given by the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad, why the entire amounts kept under the head Other Liabilities in the balance sheet amounting to Rs. 50,05,58,456/- after giving set off of Rs. 3,39,59,439.5/- incurred as expenditure in the nature of Master Plan Development cannot be treated as Income earned during the year and brought to the tax net. Please state your explanations in this due regard. 8) Please furnish the TDS Reconciliation with respect to the expenses claimed in the profit & loss account viz. Advocate / legal fee, Advertisement Charges, Rents. 9) Please furnish the confirmation letters with respect to the Fresh Liabilities introduced during the year viz. Sri O.S.R. Mukherjee, Contractor - Rs. 89,217/- Sri K. Ravindrababu, Contractor - Rs. 1,33,239/- Sri S.V. Harikrishna, Contractor - Rs. 1,29,908/....