TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the notice dated 30th September 2014 issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 together with the order dated 16th December 2015 dealing with the Petitioner's objections; (b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and Respondent No. 1 to forthwith and cancel the notice dated 30th September 2014 issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 together with the order dated 16th December 2015 dealing with the Petitioner's objections; (c) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 10B of the Act. The petitioner addressed another letter dated 07.12.2011 for Assessment Year 2009-10 in which it provided respondent no. 1 with further details and information relating to the computation of deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the said three units. 6. In relation to the petitioner's claim under Section 10B, respondent no. 1 conducted a survey under Section 133A of the Act at the petitioner's premises on 23.12.2011 and 26.12.2011. The statement of its employees was recorded and several documents were impounded. Consequently, respondent no. 1 addressed a letter dated 26.12.2011 in which he claimed that pursuant to a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act it was noticed that the three units in respect of which the petitioner had claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Act had commenced commercial production long back and no new unit had been set up at Amona and Chitradurga and that the period of 10 years had already lapsed. 7. Respondent no. 1 asked the petitioner to explain why the deduction claimed under Section 10B of the Act should not be disallowed. In response, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 27.12.2011 in which it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 10B of the Act with regard to the said three units. The CIT(A) also held that the activity carried out at Amona, Chitradurga and Codli did amount to manufacture or production. He held that there was no reconstruction of the existing units and the claims pertained to the new units. He relied on the various decisions cited by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal before concluding that the activity carried out by the petitioner satisfies the conditions under Section 10B of the Act. 12. The respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Tribunal as the claim under Section 10B was accepted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal passed an order dated 10.09.2015 in which the claim under Section 10B was restored to the file of CIT(A) to examine the same in the light of the letter dated 17.07.2014 from respondent no. 1. 13. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Revenue. We have also heard Mr Pardiwala, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Ms Susan Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 at length. 14. Before we deal with the rival contentions in the present case, it needs to be noticed that in a collateral proceeding, (A) Respondent no. 1 file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adurga unit. The Tribunal was requested to consider the additional evidence produced by respondent no. 1 to rectify its order suitably. The petitioner filed detailed written submissions before the Tribunal dealing with the allegations raised by respondent no. 1. (E) The said Miscellaneous Application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 07.01.2015. The Tribunal held that the decision in the order dated 08.03.2013, that the units set up by the petitioner are "new" and eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act was based on an appreciation of the facts on record and that the department had not been able to show that the Tribunal had not considered any contention, plea or argument raised before it. (F) So far as alleged suppression of sales is concerned it may be stated that Justice M.B. Shah Commission of Enquiry was set up to investigate the illegal mining of iron ore and manganese in the State of Goa. The Shah Commission has given particulars of cases relating to the petitioner where according to it, there is under-invoicing. The Commission, however, made it amply clear that its findings in the report on the issue of alleged under-invoicing are tentative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the profits from 100% EOUS. 15. Then the decisions of this Court which have a bearing on the issues involved in the present petition need to be noticed, which are as follows: (i) WP No. 102/2016 and other connected matters dated 09.07.2019 in the case of Shantadurga Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT & Anr., (ii) WP No. 233/2015 and 883/2016 dated 19.01.2024 in the case of Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT & Anr., (iii) WP Nos.262/2016 and other connected matters dated 26.04.2024 in the case of Balaji Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT & Ors. 16. In the context of the present case, it is relevant to note that pursuant to the passing of the assessment order by respondent no. 1 on 11.01.2013, appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT(A) was allowed. The CIT(A) vide its order dated 11.12.2014 accepted the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act with regard to the said three units. The CIT(A) also held that the activity held at Amona, Chitradurga and Codli did not amount to manufacture or production. It was held that there was no reconstruction of existing units and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer "may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. (emphasis supplied) 20. The allegations of under-invoicing exports as well as illegality in carrying the mining activities by the petitioner came up for consideration in several Writ Petitions. We find it relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in Sesa Sterlite Limited V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 141/2015, which was decided recently on 04.09.2024. Para 34 of the decision in Sesa Sterlite Limited V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors. (supra) reads thus: "34. We find that the reasons recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er part of this judgment, pursuant to the passing of the assessment order by respondent no. 1 on 11.01.2013, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CIT(A) was allowed. The CIT(A) vide its order dated 11.12.2014 accepted the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act with regard to the said three units. Against the order of CIT(A), respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Tribunal as the claim under Section 10B was accepted by CIT(A). The Tribunal passed an order dated 10.09.2015 in which the claim under Section 10B was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the same in the light of a letter dated 17.07.2014 from respondent no. 1. This letter dated 17.07.2014 addressed by respondent no. 1 to the CIT(A) informed that the survey under Section 133A was conducted on the petitioner on 20.03.2014 wherein new evidences have been found showing that the petitioner's claim was not a new unit and taking into consideration new evidences the claim under Section 10B be disallowed. 22. It may be mentioned that this very survey formed the basis of the contention raised by the petitioner in Sesa Sterlite Limited V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0B. Thus, the reasons of the Assessing Officer in support of his finding may be several but what is relevant is the subject matter of the tax appeal. It is here that according to us the third proviso to Section 147 will spring into effect. The third proviso says that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. 37. Let us examine if the third proviso comes in the way of reassessment. The reassessment proceedings are obviously initiated as the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 10B after the initial survey was negatived by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). When the fresh survey was conducted during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the new materials found by the Assessing Officer were sought to be placed before the Tribunal and this Court. The issue under consideration before the Tribunal as well as this Court was whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10B. Assuming that the reassessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was already subject matter of challenge before the competent forum. 39. In Poonam Builders V/s. ACIT 162 Taxmann 238, the assessee therein had claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) which was denied to it in the course of an assessment framed under Section 153A read with 153C of the Act. This denial was challenged by the assessee therein before the CIT(A) on two grounds, viz., that such denial could not be done in the course of an assessment framed under section 153A read with section 153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of the search and, in any event, all the conditions required to be complied with for being entitled to a deduction under Section 80IB(10) were fulfilled. The CIT(A) passed an order accepting the first contention and, therefore, did not deal with the second contention. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 was issued proposing to reassess the assessee's income on the ground that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) was wrongly allowed in the original assessment. This Court held that the proviso is a clear bar to the exercise of jurisdiction to reopen where any income which is the subject matter of appeal ....