TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 2. The substantial question of law admitted on 11.12.2012 relates to re-assessment and reads as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reopening based on change of opinion was bad in law?" 3. The assessee filed a return of income claiming relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The return was taken up for scrutiny and an assessment completed on 29.12.2006 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessment order is wholly silent as to the deduction under Section 80HHC, and nowhere does the Assessing Authority refer to the computation of 80HHC. Neither does he mention anywhere tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hence, it is too late in the day for the assessee to pursue that line of argument now. The sole ground taken before the first appellate authority was with regard to assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 and the eligibility for relief under Section 80HHC as computed by it in the original return of income. 8. In the appellate order, the reasons are extracted at paragraph 5.2. as follows: '5.2 It could be noted from records that the Assessing Officer had recorded following reason for re-opening of Assessment: "The Assessee Company Manufacture and exporter of terry towels admitted total income of Rs..28,33,890/- after claiming deduction u/s.80HHC of Rs..35,45,309/-. It is seen from the computation of deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of opinion and is hence bad in law. He also submits that the return of income filed contains the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC, and it was only upon consideration of the same that the Assessing Authority had accepted the relief claimed. Hence, there was no new or tangible material brought on record in the re-assessment proceedings vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 13.In support of his contention, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer Ward No.16(2) V. M/s. TechSpan India Private Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2007 dated 24.04.2018 before Supreme Court of India and of the Gujarat High Court in Hareshkumar Bhupatbhai Panchani V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence and normally, in a case involving a scrutiny assessment, the presumption would be in favour of the Assessing Authority having applied his mind to the issues that arise from the return of income filed, if supported by some evidence of discussion pre-assessment on those issues, by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) or questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Act, identifying specific issues and calling for a response from the assessee. 20. In this case, the assessment order is singularly silent with regard to any such correspondence with the assessee, and is wholly non-speaking with regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Had the Assessing Officer mentioned the claim under Section 80HHC in either the body of assessment or in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; 22. In the present case though an assessment under Section 143(3) has been made, the income is admittedly subject to excessive relief under Section 80HHC, as the computation in the assessment has attained finality. Hence, the assumption of jurisdiction is seen to be justified. 23. Coming to the decisions cited, both, Tech Span India Private Ltd. & Anr. and Hareshkumar Bhupatbhai Panchani, contain detailed reference to correspondence prior to completion of original assessment under Section 143(3) in relation to those issues identified by the Assessing ....