Bothra International v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0322 (Jod-Trib) : (2013) 051 (II) ITCL 0515 : (2013) 151 TTJ 0028 : (2012) 080 DTR 0332 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Reassessment--Change of opinion Excessive relief under sections 80-IB/80HHC granted--Assessing officer framed original assessment under section 143(3) and clearly stated that the assessee filed return of income alongwith audit report in Form No. 3CB, 3CD, 10CCB, 10CCAC and claimed deduction under section 80HHC, 80-IB and 80G. He also mentioned that assessee had furnished required details and produced relevant books and registers which had been examined on test check basis. Assessing officer mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee was manufacturing and exporting handicraft articles and had fulfilled all the conditions required for allowability of deduction under section 80-Ib. assessing officer had raised specific query regarding the deduction under section 80-IB and reply of assessee had been received and after examining the issue in detail and taking the view in consonance with the view taken by jurisdictional High Court in Saraf Seasoning Udyog v. ITO (2008) 13 DTR (Raj) 109 : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 766 (Raj-HC), allowed the claim of assessee for deduction under section 80-IB. Assessing officer thereafter, issued notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment under section 143(3) as income from sale of DEPB licence could not be treated as business income for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IB and, therefore, the same had escaped assessment. Held: Was not justified as the assessee had furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction under section 80-Ib and assessing officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing assessment under section 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, reopening of assessment was definitely a change of opinion which was not maintainable and, therefore, reassessment framed by assessing officer under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 after completing the assessment under section 143(3) by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court was not valid. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 In the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench Hari Om Maratha, J.M. & N.K. Saini, A.M. Bothra International v. ITO ITA No. 37/Jd/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 21 September, 2012 Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 147, proviso; In favour of: Assessee Circular No. 68, dated 17-11-1971 Appellant by : Amit Kothari & Madan Gopal Chandak Respondent by : G. R. Kokani ORDER *N. K. Saini, A.M.* This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22-1-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal : '1. The proceeding under section 148 initiated in the case of the appellant is bad in law and bad on facts, and without proper jurisdiction and is also barred by limitation of time. 2. The proceeding initiated under section 148 is also bad in law in view of original assessment being completed under section 143(3) after detailed examination of issues on which the proceedings have been initiated. 3. The conditions precedent to initiation of proceedings under section 148 being absent, such order deserves to be quashed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0322 (Jod-Trib) : (2013) 051 (II) ITCL 0515 : (2013) 151 TTJ 0028 : (2012) 080 DTR 0332

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Reassessment--Change of opinion Excessive relief under sections 80-IB/80HHC granted--Assessing officer framed original assessment under section 143(3) and clearly stated that the assessee filed return of income alongwith audit report in Form No. 3CB, 3CD, 10CCB, 10CCAC and claimed deduction under section 80HHC, 80-IB and 80G. He also mentioned that assessee had furnished required details and produced relevant books and registers which had been examined on test check basis. Assessing officer mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee was manufacturing and exporting handicraft articles and had fulfilled all the conditions required for allowability of deduction under section 80-Ib. assessing officer had raised specific query regarding the deduction under section 80-IB and reply of assessee had been received and after examining the issue in detail and taking the view in consonance with the view taken by jurisdictional High Court in Saraf Seasoning Udyog v. ITO (2008) 13 DTR (Raj) 109 : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 766 (Raj-HC), allowed the claim of assessee for deduction under section 80-IB. Assessing officer thereafter, issued notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment under section 143(3) as income from sale of DEPB licence could not be treated as business income for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IB and, therefore, the same had escaped assessment. Held: Was not justified as the assessee had furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction under section 80-Ib and assessing officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing assessment under section 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, reopening of assessment was definitely a change of opinion which was not maintainable and, therefore, reassessment framed by assessing officer under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 after completing the assessment under section 143(3) by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court was not valid.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147

In the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench

Hari Om Maratha, J.M. & N.K. Saini, A.M.

Bothra International v. ITO

ITA No. 37/Jd/2011

A.Y. 2003-04

21 September, 2012

Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 147, proviso; In favour of: Assessee

Circular No. 68, dated 17-11-1971

Appellant by : Amit Kothari & Madan Gopal Chandak

Respondent by : G. R. Kokani

ORDER

N. K. Saini, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22-1-2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur.

2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

'1. The proceeding under section 148 initiated in the case of the appellant is bad in law and bad on facts, and without proper jurisdiction and is also barred by limitation of time.

2. The proceeding initiated under section 148 is also bad in law in view of original assessment being completed under section 143(3) after detailed examination of issues on which the proceedings have been initiated.

3. The conditions precedent to initiation of proceedings under section 148 being absent, such order deserves to be quashed.