TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be taken up by ignoring the main grounds. Accordingly, upon hearing both the parties, we shall take up concise grounds of appeal ignoring the main grounds of appeal of Form No. 36. 5. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in holding the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144A r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30-03-2015 is valid under law. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of computer Software Development and providing IT-enabled Services. The assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,05,000/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 7,39,07,383/- u/s. 10B of the Act. Under scrutiny, the AO finalized the assessment by allowing deduction u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of Pune Unit and disallowed in respect of Ahmedabad and Bangalore Units being not approved under STPI vide its order dated 16-12-2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said order before the CIT(A), wherein, the CIT(A) confirmed the deduction in respect of Pune Unit and restricted the disallowance u/s. 10B of the Act at 20% of the expenditure incurred towards Ahmedabad and Bangalore Units. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of Pune Unit and disallowed for Ahmadabad and Bangalore Units. He further submits that the AO omitted to state the entire reasons recorded for reopening and he mentioned only one paragraph of the reasons recorded. The CIT(A) without referring to the assessment records confirmed the reassessment made u/s. 147 of the Act. Further, he submits that the reassessment was completed without disposing off the objections to reopening and vehemently argued that a mistake in original assessment cannot be rectified u/s. 147 of the Act. There was no fresh material claimed to have been found by the AO and reasons recorded cannot further be modified or supplanted. He argued by reading of reasons recorded by the AO clearly shows that only on the subsequent decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Regency Creation which is not permissible, is bad under law and it is a change of opinion. 9. The ld. AR placed reliance in the case of Indra Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 80 ITR 559 (Cal.) and argued that the Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta quashed the notice issued for reopening of assessment on the ground that when the assessee disclosed all the primary fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed that in the reasons recorded the AO mentioned share transfer from carrying sale on 26-03-2004. The said share transfer form was furnished by the assessee only on 25-03-2008 and to the AO on 21-04-2008. It was contended that the assertion in the reasons to believe shows reasons to believe have been anti-dated. We note that the Hon‟ble High Court held the reasons were not recorded before the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and quashed the said reassessment notice. In the present case, we note that the AO passed order on 30-03-2015 incorporating directions dated 31-03-2015 u/s. 144A of the Act of CIT. 11. The ld. DR, Shri Deepak Garg submits that the AO given adequate reasons for reopening the assessment on the basis of a fresh finding that the entire claim of deduction u/s. 10B was not allowable due to the absence of requisite approval by the concerned Board which was discovered after completion of original assessment. The AO clearly mentioned this fact in the reasons recorded and also in order disposing objections. The change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when AO has taken the permissible view at the time of original proceedings and wrong appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act vide Para No. 8. The Hon‟ble High Court was pleased to consider the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT reported in 189 ITR 285 (SC) which held the information by way of a decision of High Court comes to the knowledge of AO subsequently constitutes an information and material to reopen the proceeding u/s. 147 of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court also considered the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Saradbhai M. Lakhani reported in 243 ITR 1which held the decision of High Court would constitute an information and the initiation of reassessment proceeding on the basis of the decision of the High Court is held to be justified. In the case of Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 247 ITR 818 which held that the Income Tax Officer is not precluded from reopening of the assessment of an earlier year on the basis of his finding of fact made on the basis of the fresh material in the course of assessment of the next assessment year. Considering the above three decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad that the decision of the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady completed assessment. 16. Coming to the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Raghunath Pr. Poddar (supra) the question therein was "Whether the order of the Tribunal in Annexures "C-1" and "C-2" constitute "information' within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) so as to justify the assessment in this case being reopened?" The Hon‟ble High Court referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai reported in 83 ITR 86 (SC) which held that the ITO would have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 34(1)(b) of the Act, if he had acted on an information received from the superior authorities or the Court even in the assessment proceedings and answered the question in affirmative in favour of the Revenue. 17. Further, in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Saradbhai M. Lakhani reported in 122 Taxman 111 (SC) which held that on the basis of the information which is received by the ITO, reassessment proceedings can be initiated, when the ITO became aware of the decision of Court, he could initiate the proceedings u/s. 147(b) of the Act. 18. Having considered the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR alo....