TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-opening of the assessment for these Assessment Years vide the second impugned order dated 11.07.2011. 2. This is the second round of litigation after the impugned notices dated 09.03.2010 for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were issued and impugned notice dated 16.03.2010 was issued to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. 3. The reasons for re-opening the assessment were furnished to the petitioner vide communication dated 20.07.2010. The petitioner sent his objection. However, without passing speaking order, directly re-assessment orders dated 31.12.2010 came to be passed for these Assessment Years. These Assessment Orders came to be challenged in W.P.Nos.2583 to 2585 of 2011. By three separate orders dated 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, vide dated 31.12.2007 and by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 and therefore the benefit was denied to the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the dis-allowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act and that the Tribunal by its order dated 26.06.2009 reversed the order and allowed the benefit to the petitioner which was also upheld by this Court in its order dated 12.07.2010 in T.C.A.Nos.546 & 547 of 2010. 7. It is therefore submitted that the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act which was denied for the Assessment Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 purely on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in a month and number of workers who worked less than 15 days in that month." 10. Thus, the stand taken earlier that the activity do not amounting to manufacture was given up once the issue had attained finality at the primary/tribunal stage and later affirmed by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the exemption under Section 80IB of the Act, the sub-clause 2(iv) of the Act has been satisfied inasmuch as the impugned speaking order dated 11.07.2011 itself admits that out of four processes involved in the manufacturing process, one of the process, namely 'holes notching' was with the aid of power. Therefore, as long as power was used in the manufacture of the final outcome, the number of employees required for claiming dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration. 13. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Income Tax Department further submits that during the course of survey under Section 133(a) of the Act, on 12.11.2009, the records of the petitioner were impounded and as per the register, the assessee has engaged less than 20 workers, thus it cannot be said that there was a change of opinion on the part of the Income Tax Department while re-opening of the assessment or that the petitioner had true and wilful disclosure of all materials required for assessment so as to quash the re-opening of the assessment for the year 2004-2005, the learned counsel for the revenue further submits that the decision of this Court in Fenner India has ignored the expressed language of Section 147 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch as one of the process namely 'holes notching' was with the aid of power. Therefore, the only requirement for the petitioner to satisfy for claiming deduction was regarding the number of workers employed by it for manufacturing process. 18. In the impugned order dated 11.07.2011, there are three tabulations. Each of the tabulations gives the number of workers employed by the petitioner during the months. For the Assessment Year 2004-2005, the tabulations indicates that more than 10 employees were worked at any given point of time. In case during the Assessment Year 2004-2005, the number of employees were more than 15 per month and the average between 15 to 23. 19. Though at the time of original assessment, no documents appears t....