TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the instance of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), seeks to challenge the order dated 30.11.2023 in I.T.A. No.139/COCH/2020 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, with respect to the assessment year 2009-10, by which, the findings of the first appellate authority to the effect that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of Act, after four years was bad in law, was set aside. The appellant-assessee has raised the following questions of law: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment under Section 147 for AY 2009-10 is not barred by limitation? ii. Whether on the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 35(2AB) is the Secretary, Department of Scientific Industrial Research (Government of India). As per the law that stood on the assessment year, the prescribed authority shall submit its report in relation to approval of the in-house research and development facility in Form 3CL to the Director General (Income Tax Assessment) within 60 days from the date of granting such approval. This rule, referred to under Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules, underwent an amendment with effect from 01.07.2016. After the amendment, it is mandated that, apart from the reporting of the approval, the prescribed authority shall also quantify the expenditure incurred by the company on in-house development and research facilities. This certified expenditure qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year, unless the assessee fails to disclose material facts fully and truly. That means, in this case, before 31/03/2014. The question is whether non-disclosure of Form 3CL is material or not. The appellate authority, as against the assessment order, ruled in favour of the assessee. The second appellate Tribunal interfered with the order of the appellate authority. 6. The Tribunal relied on explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Act. It is appropriate to refer to the explanation in Section 147. "Explanation 1- Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction. No doubt, this case could have been reopened on the grounds of non-consideration of expenditure reflected in Form 3CL, if it had been done within the time. But law does not allow to reopen such assessment after four years merely to rectify such mistake of not adverting to Form 3CL, since it was not obligatory for the prescribed authority to certify the expenditure incurred. Any reference to expenditure in the Form 3CL thus became inconsequential or insignificant for the assessing authority to allow the deduction claimed. In the light of the law as it stood at the time of assessment, it cannot be said that there was willful non-disclosure, as the prescrib....