TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice u/s 148, 143(2) and 142( 1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the deduction of interest paid on Housing Loan amounting to Rs. 8,01,501/- while calculating Income under the head House property and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,01,501/- paid as interest on Housing Loan while calculating Income under the head House property, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in calculating the loss from House property at Rs. 4,95,742/- instead of Rs. 13,41,638/-, as claimed by the assessee in the return of income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Year 2008-09, in the case of The DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marge, C-Scheme, Jaipur and Indira Exports Private Limited vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 391/2007, 338/2007 and 294/2006 dated 31.10.2011 (Indore) which the assessee has attached in the paper book at pages 11 to 16 and also the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Anil Gupta vs. AO, (2005) 96 TTJ 0798 (Delhi) which the assessee has attached at pages 17 to 25 of the paper book. 3. Learned DR relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith the case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee on the issue in dispute and I am of the considered view that there are many orders have been filed by the learned counsel for the assessee to support his contention. But he especially draw my attention towards the order dated 20.02.2018 of ITAT Jaipur Benches, Jaipur passed in ITA No. 92/JP/2015 Assessment Year 2008-09 in the case of M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marge, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "We are in receipt of your aforesaid notice in which you have propose to reduce deduction u/s 80IA by Rs. 1,36,34,564/-, in this connection we are to submit that during the year assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of various industrial area and for which audit certificate u/s 80IA has also been submitted during the course of as assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3). Total eligible profit u/s 80I A of all these industrial area works out to Rs. 98,13,07,585/- against which assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 95,1 1,66,037/-. If the loss of two unit i.e. EPIP, Sitapura & Boranada of Rs. 1,36,34,564/- is considered while working out eligible amount of deduction u/s 80IA then eligible deduction works out to Rs. 96,76,73, 021/- (98,13,07,585- 1,36,34,564) against which assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 95,11,66,037/- only. Since assessee has already claimed deduction u/s 80IA at lesser amount as compared to computed by your good self, thus there is no need to make any adjustment u/s 154/155." Thus, the assessee clearly explained that the profit of the assessee eligible deduction u/s 80IA is Rs. 96,76,73,021/- even after the adjustmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, it is not disputed that there is no record of closing the proceeding u/s 154 of the Act. There is no quarrel that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 even when the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. However, when the issue in the two proceedings initiated u/s 154 as well as u/s 147of the Act is the same than without considering the proceeding u/s 154 of the Act the AO cannot initiate parallel proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Act on the same issue. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sterilite Industries India Ltd. vs. ACIT(supra) while dealing with an identical issue of jurisdiction of the AO has held in paras 28 o 30 as under:- "28. As already pointed out, in respect of the assessment year 2003-04, the first respondent herein issued notice under Section 154 on 20.7.2006, wherein, the Officer proposed to disallow the claim under Section 80 HHC, provision for bad debts and diminution of value of current investment and income tax debited in respect of Section 115 JB assessment and on the regular assessment under Section 143(3) in respect of the alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars, I have no hesitation in quashing the notice on reassessment." The Hon'ble High Court as held that then cannot be two parallel proceedings on the self same issue as are based on the view that there were materials available on record which warranted exercise of jurisdiction u/s 154 and the other initiated u/s 147 that there was escapement of income from tax. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mahinder Freight Carrier vs. DCIT 129 ITD 278 has held in para 10 as under:- "10. In this case, the Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under section 154 of the Act and said proceeding, as per record, has not reached the finality, either by dropping the same or passing any order in the said proceeding. As per the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as the assessee did not respond to the notice issued under section 154, the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings under section 147 and in consequence issued the notice under section 148. It is also admitted fact that except the return of income of the assessee and its enclosures, no other extra material or information was in possession of the Assessing Officer. It is true that the assessee filed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act on the basis of the same fact and material available on the assessment record. Thus, reopening on the basis of the material available on assessment record is nothing but based on change of opinion. The Hon'ble Calculta High Court in case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) has held in paras 42 to 53 are as under:- "42. However, if the Assessing Officer is of the view that income has escaped assessment by reason of a mistake apparent from records, and takes recourse to section 154, but finds later, that there is no apparent mistake, then he cannot, in the absence of any other ground on the basis of which he still has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, start reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer cannot again start reassessment proceedings on the basis of the same reasons. 43. The Assessing Officer has not disclosed the reasons for the Assessing Officer to still believe that income that was the subject- matter of rectification had still escaped assessment though that was not due to any obvious mistake, borne out from existing records. 44. The judgment in GKN Drive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nity. There is nothing in its conduct which would justify the refusal or proper relief under article 226. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons." 48. Moreover, in this case, where the writ petition had been entertained and kept pending for about six years and directions issued for filing of affidavits, this court is not inclined to decline relief only on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy of filing an objection before the Assessing Officer and then taking recourse to an appeal upon reassessment. 49. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO reported in [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) cited by Mr. Bhowmick, the Supreme Court was satisfied on facts that jurisdiction to reassess had validly been assumed. 50. If there are reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, and jurisdiction to issue notice of reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act has been exercised, the court ought not to weigh the sufficiency of the reasons in exercise of its....