TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the assessee had made incorrect claim for the respective years under consideration as the conditions laid down under Section 80 IB(10) (a)(iii) of the Act was not satisfied. 3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ applications are as follows: 3.1 The assessee firm is engaged in the business of development and construction of the housing projects and civil construction. The assessee during the years under consideration had derived income from the business and other sources and had completed two projects, one is the residential project and second is the residential plotting scheme. 3.2 It is the case of the revenue that, the assessee had claimed deductions under Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the residential scheme and also claimed the commission expenses of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid to Mr. Baldevbhai Patel (HUF) and deposited unexplained cash amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-. The reassessment sought to be reopened for the years under consideration mainly on the ground of incorrect claim of the deductions and unexplained cash deposit. It is not in dispute that, for the A.Y 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the scrutiny assessment was framed under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has claimed expense of Rs. 6,00,000/towards commission paid to Baldevbhai M Patel HUF, Further, a cash deposit of Rs. 6,80,000/- has been reported in the bank HDFC Bank account of the assessee firm during June 2010. The assessee firm has claimed deduction u/s 80(18) of the act on the basis of letter No NABP Bopal Dascroi/1472 dated 28 03 2007 of Town Planning and Valuation Department of Government of Gujarat which has accepted layout plan for non-agricultural purpose furnished by the assessee. As per the conditions mentioned in the letter, the assessee was required to take permission for NA use from the District taluka Development Officer and local authority. From the records, it is seen that the assessee did not get approval of the local authority i.e. Bopal Gram Panchayat. The assessee has claimed expense of Rs. 6,00,000/towards commission paid to Baldevbhai M Patel NUF and had deducted TDS @10°% amounting to Rs. 60,000/knowing the fact that HUF is a non-functional entity in terms of commission income. Further, cash deposit of Rs. 6,80,000/has been found in the bank accounts of the assessee firtn between 07/06/2010-24/06/2010. The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period permitted in the notice for reopening. Likewise the time frame for the AO to dispose of the objections would apply only if the assessee raises objections within the time provided hereinabove. This, however, would not mean that if in either case, the assessee misses the time limit; the procedure provided by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) would not apply. It only means that the time frame provided hereinabove would not apply in such cases. 3. As reasons for reopening are provided, you are requested to file your reply/submission and objection, if any on or before 24/05/2018. In case of non compliance or no response by the above mentioned time it will be deemed that you have nothing to say in this regard and proceedings will be finalized accordingly." The assessee had raised the objections vide its communication dated 13.02.2014, which came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 04.09.2018. 4.2 SCA No . 17495 of 2019 (A.Y. 201 2-13) The assessee filed its original return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, the assessee did not get approval of the local authority i.e. Bopal Gram Panchayat. The assessee has claimed deduction Explanation 1 of Section 80IB (a)(iii) of the Act for the amount of Rs. 49,98,237/- has escaped assessment. The assessee had raised the objections vide its communication dated 09.07.2019, which came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.09.2019. 5. Being aggrieved by the disposal of the objections and issuance of notices for reopening of the assessment (for A.Y 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15), the writ applicant has come up before this Court by filing present writ applications. 6. We have heard Mr. Darshan R. Patel, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ applicants and Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Karan Sanghani, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 7. Mr. Darshan R. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant has contended that, the impugned notices liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that, it has issued merely on the basis of change of opinion. In this regard, he would submit that, the assessing officer is not authorized to reopen the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., copy of the Notification of village Bopal falling under the jurisdiction of AUDA, copy of revised approval and layout plan, copy of BU permission and the copy of Form No.10CCB report for A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13. It is required to be noted that, pursuant to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had furnished bank statements, copies of ledger account, TDS statement etc. for each relevant year. 11.We take the notice of the fact that, in the previous assessment proceedings, the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act was discussed at length by the assessing officer and after considering the report in Form 10CCB, the assessing officer came to a conclusion that, the conditions for claiming deductions as envisaged are fulfilled. However, the issue of commission paid to one Mr. Baldevbhai Patel (HUF) and cash deposit of Rs. 6,50,000/-, the assessing officer had not discussed in the assessment order, but the details on both the issues were called for and it was duly complied by the assessee and the assessing officer thought fit not to make any additions, nor raise any adverse view. 12. It is a settled principle of law that, a mere fresh application of mi....