Regalia Laminates MCD Buliding Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
Held: Assessee was involved in the business of manufacturing of decorative & industrial laminated sheets. It claimed exemption u/s 80IC. A notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee and according to AO , assessee had not disclosed the fully and truly all materials facts necessary as the provision of section 80IC. Assessee had manipulated the fact and violated the provision of the section 80IC. AO had passed the order u/s 147/143(3) reducing deduction Rs 5000000/- on account of export incentive and Rs 1931555/- on account of foreign exchange fluctuation income total amount of Rs 6931555/- u/s 80IC. It was held that assessee had made available all account and record at the time of the original assessment and in the compliance of the notice u/s 154 then the reopening of assessment after four years was not permissible. There was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment. Assessee had disclosed fully or truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The notice issued by AO was not valid notice. Tribunal confirmed that adequate reasons had been provided for reopening the case. Since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and no new evidence had surfaced after four years, Tribunal deemed AO’s notice invalid. Consequently, it set aside the assessment made by AO.
