TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s against the interest of the assessee, is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The following grounds are mutually exclusive. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of claims under sections 80HHC and 80IA in a reassessment when the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all the material particulars and the original assessment was also a regular assessment. Thus, the impugned assessment is ab initio void and bad in law. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer by restricting the deductions claimed under sections 80HHC and 80IA. He ought to have allowed the deductions as claimed by the assessee both under sections 80HHC and 80IA. 4. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profits of industrial undertaking of the unit of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A)-II, Hyderabad and the CIT(A) allowed all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide his order dt.14- 11-2002. Subsequently, the assessment for the assessment year under consideration was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee had computed quantum of deduction allowable under section 80HHC on which the deduction under section 80IA had been claimed. Thereafter, a notice under section 147 issued and an order u/s 143(3) read with sec.147 was passed on 28-2-2005, applying provisions of section 80IA(9) while computing deduction allowable under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100% of the profit of the undertaking as deduction in terms of sec.80IA and 80HHC of the Act. Even if these deductions are allowed one after other, the purpose of introduction of sec.80IA(9) could be served. The decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Pvt. Limited (2009) 315 ITR (AT) (Delhi) (SB) is not contradictory to his submissions. Rather, it is in conformity with his submissions. The lower authorities have not verified whether the assessee has claimed more than 100% of the profits of the industrial undertaking as deduction in terms of sections 80HHC and 80IA of the Act. Hence, he submitted that, if required, the matter may be restored to the file of the assessing officer for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. We find merit in the contentions of the learned Departmental Representative that the aspect of claiming double deduction as per the provisions of subsection (9) of section 80IA of the Act was not before the assessing officer in the original assessment. Hence, there was no change of opinion by the assessing officer on this aspect. Therefore, we do not see any change of opinion formed by the assessing officer for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer is right in reopening the assessment by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. On merit, we find that this issue was already dealt with by the larger Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Min....