2022 (5) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on jurisdictional issue are ground nos. 1 to 4 wherein the order of Ld. CIT(A) has been assailed for the reason that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were not quashed by ld CIT(A) which were wrongly initiated by the AO in violation of 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 12,45,14,027/- which included deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 10,44,52,044/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 27.12.2011 accepting the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act and assessing income at Rs. 2,00,64,081/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the act issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 10.03.2016 which was dul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of Salarpuria Touchstone project to the tune of Rs. 77,19,600/- and therefore the income has escaped to the tune of Rs. 1,71,41,955/-. Finally the assessment was framed vide order dated 13.12.2016 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on jurisdictional /legal issue by holding that the AO has own bonafide belief on the basis of information available with him and further noted that AO has followed due process of law in the reopening the assessment. 5. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the reopening has been made by the AO without satisfying the conditions as envisaged in the 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessment in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all the material facts pertaining to these two items in the return of income . Moreover, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 27.12.2011 and therefore reopening has been made by AO in contravention to first proviso to section 147 of the Act and therefore the reopening proceedings deserves to be quashed. In defense of the argument the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision namely Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA no. 2455/Kol/2019 for AY 2008-09 dated 24.03.2021 which has been passed by the Tribunal after following the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 105/Kol/2015 dated 31.05.2017 wherein the issue has been allowed by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt and return of income filed by the assessee and it cannot be construed as in respect of which the assessee has not truly and fully disclosed all the material facts leading to escapement of income. In fact, the assessee has disclosed all the material facts in respect of two items on the basis of which the AO formed his belief u/s 148 of the Act. Under these facts and circumstances, we find merits in the contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the reopening was made in violation to provisions as contained in first proviso to section 147 of the act which stipulates that reopening cannot be made where the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year if the escapement of income has occurred du....