TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The impugned notice seeks to reopen assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 3. The brief facts leading to this Petition are as under : (a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of building and developing housing projects. For the subject Assessment Year the Petitioner filed its return of income claiming benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act). This on the ground that the housing project called "Shagun Phase 1" (said project) was completed within the stipulated period on or before 31 March 2012. This as the said project was sanctioned on 20 March 2007. (b) During the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made detailed inquiries by notices under section 142(1) and 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir-2, Pune, Wherein as per ITR filed by assessee it is seen that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) for an amount of Rs. 3,38,63,518/- for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of its projects "Shagun Phase I". As per records number of buildings in shagun phase-I are A,B,C,D,E,F, Row houses and Bungalows G1 and G2. The first sanction for the project was received on 20.03.2007 i.e. F.Y.2006-07. After that, the assessee had received completion certificate for building A,B,E,F, Row House 1,2,3,4,17 and 18 on 25.03.2011 whereas completion certificate for building C & D, Row House 5 to 11, 11A, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 and Bungalows G1 and G2 was received on 25.09.2012. As per section 80IB(10),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notice is a change of opinion. Therefore, without jurisdiction. However the Assessing Officer by order dated 6 June 2019 rejected the objections to the impugned notice. This has led to the filing of the present Petition. 5. Mr.Naniwadekar, learned counsel appearing in support of the Petition points out that impugned notice is without jurisdiction for the following reasons. (a) The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year when the regular assessment proceedings had been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. In such cases it is submitted that unless there has been a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acie hold that benefit under section 80IB(10) of the Act could not be granted to the Petitioner; and (b) The Petitioner cannot take advantage of having disclosed incorrect and/or incomplete facts in the regular assessment proceedings for the subject Assessment Year. It is not open to the Petitioner to claim that having accepted the claim in regular assessment proceedings, it is not open to reopen the assessment. In support he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and another Vs Income Tax Officer and another - 203 ITR page 456. On the basis of the above it is submitted, that the Petition be dismissed. 7. It is an undisputed fact before us that the regular assessment proceedings for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the reopening notice would be without jurisdiction. 8. However, Mr.Walve learned counsel for Revenue invites our attention to the order dated 6 June 2019 disposing the objections and contends that the order disposing all objections in fact records the fact that during the proceedings of Assessment Year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer received tangible material which indicated that in September 2012 only the part completion certificate was issued. Therefore, it is the above tangible material that led to the reasonable belief that the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act is not available to the entire project. However, these facts which are being relied upon by Mr.Walve are only recorded in the order disposing of the Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Thus a clear case of change of opinion and notice without jurisdiction. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, the decision of the Apex Court in Phool Chand and another (supra) would have no application. We are concerned here with the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment. The reopening of an assessment is strictly dependent on the Assessing Officer meeting the jurisdictional requirements to issue a reopening notice i.e. reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. This examination is only for the reason recorded at the time of issuing the impugned notice. Thus the fact that an assessee in subsequent proceedings discovered facts which were suppressed in the earlier assessment proceedings by itself ....