The issue in dispute raised in additional ground relating to non issue of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is decided in favour of the assessee and we hold that the impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2009 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act by the AO as invalid.
Issue- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,83,555/- which was made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act as the service tax payable in the balance sheet was not deposited before due date of filing of return.
The assessee received revenue on account of the contract entered into with ONGC for providing services of seismic survey to the data correction supervision for the purpose of hydrocarbon reservoir exploitation, possible leak point identification and core site selection from available 2D and 3D seismic data, core acquisition with USBL System, sample processing, prevention and transportation, laboratories analysis and interpretation and report.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully and perused the order of the AO and the CIT(A). In this case of the assessee original assessment was framed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter the completed assessment was sought to be reopened by the AO by issuance of the notice u/s 148 on the assessee on basis of reopening
The MAT provisions were introduced in statute by the Finance Bill, 1996 and the Finance Minister while introducing this provision observed that the company engaged in the power and infrastructure sector will remain exempt from the levy of MAT.
The power vested in the Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer.
In this case reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 10,24,100 have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment.
Assessee, a US company, entered into agreements with various customers in India for rendering software services – Assessing Officer held that payments received by assessee from sale of software and provision of maintenance and other support services to customers in India
The factual matrix of the present case is that there was a criminal case against the assessee with an allegation of custom duty evasion and he incurred impugned expenditure of legal fees for hiring lawyers to represent his criminal case before the Hon’ble High Court and Lower Courts to get the bail order.
As per record, we find that there was no notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which is very much essential for reassessment and it is a failure on the part of the AO for not complying with the procedure laid down in section 143(2) of the I.T. Act.
