TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices live simultaneously and impugned asstt. being framed considering both these notices, is illegal and unsustainable in law, also, as, after issuance of 1st notice, the 2n notice cannot be issued without withdrawing the 1s notice, in any case only one of the notices can survive and the asstt. should had been framed only on the basis of such single survived notice u/s.148. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, initiation of proceedings u/s.147/148 are mechanical, without application of mind, illegal, without jurisdiction, un-warranted and un-sustainable in law as well as on merits. 3. That the approval of higher authorities u/s.151 being mechanical and without application of mind, hence, invalid in law so much so as to not capable of providing valid jurisdiction for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 4. That the impugned asstt. order is unsustainable in law for not disposing off all the objections, as per law and by passing a proper speaking order on all the objections taken, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shaft Pvt. Ltd. 259 ITR 18 SC. 5. That both the lower authorities erred in law and facts of the case in denying the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee is a partnership firm and had filed its return of income for AY 2005-06 on 25.07.2005 declaring Nil income. The Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exports of hand-made, hand-tufted and hand woven carpets and its factory is located at Plot No. 11, Sector-4, Sidcul Industrial Estate, Ranipur, Hardwar. The Assessee commenced its production on 18.10.2004. Accordingly, this is first year of operation of Assessee firm. The total turnover of the Assessee firm for the AY 2005-06 is Rs. 30,11,37,925/- with a profit of Rs. 15,69,73,241/- including duty draw back claim of Rs. 2,72,99,429/-. The Assessee firm claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @100% of its profits and accordingly, filed Nil income in the return of income. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 08.06.2007 accepting the returned income. In the said assessment order, there is elaborate discussion with regard to entire activities carried out by the Assessee firm together with the details that were called for by the ld AO and the replies filed by the Assessee thereon. The details of various expenses de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntainers of the goods from Haridwar to Surajpur for the purpose of exports and copy of monthly Sales Tax Returns filed with the Sales Tax Authorities of Haridwar. The ld AO also observed that Assessee firm was allotted industrial pot admeasuring 13600 Sq Mtrs at Sector 4, Plot -11, Sidcul Integrated Industrial Estate, Ranipur, Haridwar by State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, Uttrakhand, Dehradun at a cost of Rs. 81,57,157/- and on which the Assessee firm constructed the factory building at a cost of Rs. 1,42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting to Rs. 2,72,99,429/- from Govt of India and being satisfied with the eligibility conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, the ld AO gave a categorical finding that the Assessee firm had fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 80IC(2)(b)(ii) of the Act and the claim suffers from no deficiency. Accordingly, the ld AO granted deduction u/s 80IC of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 07.11.2019 directed the AO to consider all the objections of the Assessee and to pass order. With regard to this Division Bench order dated 07.11.2019 of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court the ld AR submitted that in para 5 of the said order it has been categorically stated that the AO was to pass the reassessment order strictly in accordance with the law uninfluenced by any observation made by the Single Judge of Uttarakhand in his order. Moreover the ld AR also argued that the validity of the reopening u/s 148 of the Act was never decided by the Division Bench. Accordingly, he submitted that the arguments advanced by the ld DR that AO was directed by the High Court only to pass the order on merit and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act has been held to be valid by High Court, is factually incorrect. In this background of the case, let us now examine whether the ld AO validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 9. At the outset, we find that both the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 17.08.2010 and 29.03.2012 were issued beyond four years from the end of the financial year relevant to assessment year 2005-06. Hence, the applicability of the proviso t....